Add member to project or portfolio

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It transparently discloses the constraint that projects can only have admin/editor/commenter access levels (no view-only), and portfolios can have admin/editor/viewer. This goes beyond the schema to explain behavioral limits of the API. It does not, however, mention other behaviors like whether the tool overwrites existing access or adds incrementally.

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, well-structured paragraph with a clear note. Every sentence provides distinct value: the first states the purpose, the note details API 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?

Given the tool has no output schema and moderately simple parameters, the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, constraints, and parameter guidance. The only gap is missing mention of what happens upon a successful or failed add (e.g., response format), but for a member addition tool, the context provided is sufficient for most use cases.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating 'Use asana_find with type user' for the member_gid parameter, providing a sibling tool reference. However, it does not elaborate further on the parent_gid parameter beyond what the schema says. The access_level description is also somewhat redundant with the schema. Overall adds some helpful context but not extensive.

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 'Give a person or team access to a project or portfolio', using specific verb ('add') and resource ('member to project or portfolio'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'asana_find' (which is for finding entities, not adding) and 'portfolio_add_item' (which adds items, not 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?

The description provides explicit context about when to use this tool vs alternatives, mentioning Asana's own limits on access levels for projects and portfolios. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternative tools for other scenarios (e.g., removing members, which would be another tool).

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