add_org_member

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses that a brand-new wallet is provisioned as a `human` principal and that `role` defaults to `developer`. However, it lacks details on error handling, idempotency, or what happens if the wallet already exists.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with a parenthetical. It front-loads the key action and endpoint, then adds essential details without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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 3 params with good schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It covers the endpoint, prerequisites, and behavioral nuances. However, it could mention the expected return value (e.g., the member object) for full completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the provisioning behavior for new wallets and clarifying the default role and the owner requirement. It also mentions that the email flow is separate.

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 action (Add a member to an org), the method (BY WALLET), and the endpoint. It also distinguishes from the email-first invite flow, ensuring no confusion with 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?

The description specifies the prerequisite of holding an active `owner` membership and notes that the email-first invite flow is separate and not yet shipped. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like remove_org_member or set_org_member_role.

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