Add Teams Team Member

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the mutating action and the permission prerequisite, but does not mention potential failure modes, side effects, or idempotency. This adds some value beyond the schema, but deeper behavioral details are missing.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a useful permission note. The Chinese translation adds extra text but is not unnecessary for localisation. Overall, it is efficiently written.

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 simple add-member tool with two parameters and one nested object, the description adequately covers the core purpose and a key permission requirement. There is no output schema, but for a mutation action, the lack of return value details is acceptable. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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?

The schema provides descriptions for both teamId and member, covering 100% of parameters. The description's reference to roles aligns with the nested role property but adds little meaning beyond what the schema already documents. Baseline of 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 action (Add), the resource (Microsoft Entra user to a team), and the supported roles (member, owner, guest). This differentiates it from sibling tools like teams_add_channel_member and teams_add_chat_member, which target other membership scopes.

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 includes a required permission (TeamMember.ReadWrite.All) and authority requirement, which is helpful context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as teams_add_channel_member or teams_add_chat_member. The intended use is implied rather than explicit.

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