add_authz_team_member

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

The description only states the action 'Add' but does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond mutation, such as idempotency, required permissions, side effects, or error conditions. With no annotations present, the description carries full burden for transparency but is insufficient.

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 a single 7-word sentence, extremely concise and front-loaded. Every word is necessary, and it avoids any redundant or extraneous information.

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 operation, the description provides the core purpose but lacks context about authorization team semantics, error handling, or return values. Given no output schema and simple parameters, completeness is adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to fully understand the 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% with all three parameters described. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying the source of team_id or user_id. Per guidelines, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.

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 'Add a user to an authorization team' clearly states the verb (add) and resource (user to authorization team), distinguishing it from siblings like remove_authz_team_member. However, it is minimal and does not elaborate on the specific context of 'authorization team', though the name and description together are sufficient for basic understanding.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as create_authz_role_assignment or other team management tools. There are no prerequisites or conditions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage without explicit context.

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