Add Team Member

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

Annotations already declare the write, non-destructive, non-idempotent profile, and the description adds two things annotations cannot convey: the first-user-becomes-admin bootstrap side effect and the TEAM_DB_PATH prerequisite. It still omits what happens when the author already exists, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Three short sentences, each doing distinct work: action, side effect, prerequisite. The primary action is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers prerequisites and the bootstrap behavior; the only meaningful gap is duplicate-author handling, which is minor for a simple create operation.

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% and the role enum is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only that the role is "specific," which is no information beyond what the schema already carries.

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 and resource ("Add a new member to the team with a specific role"), which clearly separates it from team_remove_member and team_update_member_role. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and the bootstrap note, but there is no explicit "use this when... / use team_update_member_role instead when..." guidance. With three closely related member-management siblings, the routing signal is thinner than it should be.

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