acc_add_project_user

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

The description discloses permission requirements and a specific rule for projectAdministration:administrator, which adds value beyond the annotation readOnlyHint=false. It doesn't mention side effects like invitations, but those are partially covered in the schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, then providing auth and rule constraints. 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?

The description covers the core action, auth requirements, and a key constraint. With output schema and full param descriptions, it's fairly complete. Lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools, but that's secondary.

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 a cross-parameter constraint: 'projectAdministration:administrator requires every other granted product to be administrator too.' This clarifies how to correctly set the products parameter beyond the schema.

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 'Add one member to a project with product access, company and roles.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishing it from siblings that list, update, or remove project users.

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 provides explicit context on when to use the tool: 'The signed-in user must be a project admin (or account admin).' It also gives a rule about product access consistency. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, e.g., comparing to acc_import_project_users.

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