addUserToGroup

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint: false, indicating a write operation. The description adds no behavioral details beyond that—it does not state whether the operation is idempotent, what the response looks like, whether it can raise errors, or any side effects. With minimal annotation coverage, the description carries the full burden and fails to disclose any behavioral traits.

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 concise (one sentence) but severely under-specified. It does not provide the necessary context for a tool with two nested objects and three parameters. It is not efficiently front-loaded because it omits critical details; it is simply too short to be useful. Overly brief descriptions that sacrifice all substance are not considered good conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (two required parameter objects, an enum for format, and no output schema), the description is wholly inadequate. It does not explain the purpose of the 'format' parameter, the structure of the request, or any expected behavior. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based on the provided information without additional schema insights or external knowledge.

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 the description does not mention any parameters. It does not explain that user_id is in the body and groupId is in the path, nor what the 'format' parameter controls (json/xml). The agent must infer parameter meanings solely from the schema, which lacks descriptions. The description adds no value to parameter understanding.

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 states the action ('Add user to group') with a verb and resource, so it is not a pure tautology. However, it is extremely vague—it does not specify which parameters represent the user or group, nor any constraints. It also does not distinguish itself beyond the obvious action, though there is a sibling removeUserFromGroup that differs. Thus it meets a basic but not detailed clarity level.

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 tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria. The description provides no context about typical scenarios or when not to use it. The only implicit signal is the tool's name, which is insufficient for an agent to decide between this and other membership-related tools.

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