Teams: Add a New Agent

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: the auth mechanism (User API key in api-access-token header), the concrete endpoint, and the extra_body merge behavior. It stops short of describing duplicate-membership behavior, so it is not a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the API/auth details are compact, but the trailing note about Persian/Arabic-Indic digits and unchanged text is boilerplate noise that does not earn its place for an ID-based membership call.

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 endpoint, auth, required body field, and an escape hatch (extra_body), which is adequate to invoke it. It is silent on the response shape and on what happens when a user is already a team member, leaving gaps for a non-idempotent write.

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 schema already documents account_id, team_id, user_ids, and extra_body, making 3 the baseline. The description restates user_ids as required and mentions extra_body but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (add agents to a team) that is immediately distinguishable from the sibling operations list_team_agents, update_team_agents, and remove_team_agent. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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 text is an API reference rather than guidance: it never says when to use this versus update_team_agents or the similar gapify_add_inbox_agents, nor does it state any preconditions. No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is given.

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