ad_add_group_member

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and it only supplies a [WRITE] label. It says nothing about the dry_run flag, the confirmation_token two-phase flow, correlation_id usage, permission requirements, or what happens when a member is already present. These are exactly the behaviors an agent needs before invoking a destructive directory mutation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with category and write-mode tags, no filler. It is tight and scannable, though its brevity comes at the cost of the behavioral detail noted elsewhere rather than being genuinely complete.

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, but this is a five-parameter write tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions. The undefined dry_run/confirmation_token relationship is a material omission that leaves the agent unable to safely compose the call.

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 description coverage is 0% and all five properties have bare titles only. The description accounts for 'group' and 'members' implicitly through its wording, but leaves dry_run, correlation_id, and confirmation_token completely unexplained — and those are the non-obvious parameters that gate safe execution.

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: adding member(s) to a group, which is clearly distinct from ad_remove_group_member and ad_list_group_members. The [Groups & Members] [WRITE] tags reinforce scope and mutability, though the description never names a sibling explicitly and is written in Portuguese while the tool name is English.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus ad_remove_group_member or ad_list_group_members, nor any prerequisite (e.g., group must exist, caller needs write rights on the group). The [WRITE] tag implies a mutation context but nothing tells the agent when this call is appropriate or what preconditions must hold.

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