add_guests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'adds' implies a write operation, the description doesn't specify required permissions, whether guests are added to a specific context (space/app), what happens on duplicate entries, or what the response contains. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core action, though this conciseness comes at the cost of missing important contextual 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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and complex nested parameters (array of objects with 5 properties), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address permissions, response format, error conditions, or parameter semantics. The single-sentence description is inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter (an array of guest objects with 5 sub-properties), the description provides no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'guests' array contains, what the sub-properties represent, or provide examples of valid values. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 'ゲストユーザーを追加します' (Adds guest users) clearly states the verb ('adds') and resource ('guest users'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'update_space_guests' or 'get_users', which could handle similar user management functions.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'update_space_guests' and 'get_users' available, there's no indication whether this tool is for initial guest creation versus modification, or whether it applies to specific contexts like spaces or apps.

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