calls_participants_add

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'register new participants' but does not indicate idempotency, error conditions, permission requirements, or side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the action. However, it is perhaps too concise, omitting useful detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 required params, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description is minimally complete. But it lacks context about success/error outcomes and integration with sibling tools, making it barely adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions for 'id' and 'users'. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond 'Register new participants', so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'register' and resource 'new participants added to a call', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like calls_participants_remove. However, it could be more precise about what 'register' entails (e.g., adding to participant list).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidelines are provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as prerequisites (call must exist) or when not to use it (e.g., if call has ended). The description lacks context for proper agent decision-making.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.