add_org_member

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

Given no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that a brand-new wallet is provisioned as a 'human' principal and the role defaults to 'developer'. It does not mention reversibility, errors, or rate limits, but the side effect is clearly stated.

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 paragraph of four sentences, each serving a purpose: action, side effect, default, prerequisite, and alternative. No wasted words.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, prerequisite, default, and side effect. It could mention what the response indicates (e.g., success or the new member object), but this is a minor gap. The presence of list_org_members among siblings compensates partially.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: that 'wallet' can be an EVM address or named wallet, that a new wallet is provisioned, and that 'role' defaults to 'developer'. This exceeds mere schema repetition.

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 verb 'Add' with resource 'member to an org' is explicit. The method 'BY WALLET' and inclusion of the REST endpoint clarify the operation. It distinguishes from the email-first invite flow, differentiating from potential sibling tools.

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?

It explicitly requires an active 'owner' membership and notes the default role. It mentions the email-invite alternative as separate and not-yet-shipped, providing context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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