buzz_add_member

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the action is performed as the current user, depends on the user's own role, and warns that the added person can see prior channel history. This covers key side effects and permission boundaries.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses dense, useful detail. The final sentence partially repeats schema property descriptions, but it also adds the 'optional' framing and permission context, so it still earns most of its place.

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, it covers the essential call context: identity, permissions, role semantics, and a privacy side effect. It does not describe error cases or return values, but those are secondary for a straightforward add-member action.

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 67%, with channel lacking a description. The description adds meaning by specifying the accepted user formats (npub/hex/display-name/email) and the optional role values with default and permission implications. This partly compensates for the undocumented channel parameter.

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 starts with 'Add a person to a channel', identifying a specific action and resource, and adds the protocol context 'NIP-29 kind 9000' and 'as you'. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like buzz_remove_member and buzz_channel_members.

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 gives concrete conditions for use, such as 'private channels need you to be a member' and 'elevated roles need owner/admin'. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the permission-based guidance is clear enough for an agent to decide when invocation is appropriate.

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