add_family_member

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic operation without explaining side effects, error conditions (e.g., member already in a family), identity requirements (member must exist), or permissions. This is insufficient 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 extremely concise: three lines covering purpose, usage, and parameters. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded with the core action. 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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description omits any mention of the return value or behavior after linking. It does not address whether the tool returns the updated family or a status. For a mutation with no annotations, more context is needed regarding success/failure indicators and side effects.

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?

The description adds brief explanations for each parameter beyond the schema titles, but they are minimal. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates partially but lacks detail on allowed values or constraints (e.g., relationship options).

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 the action ('Link an existing member into a family account') and specifies the primary resource (existing member, family account). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_member and delete_member by implying the member already exists.

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?

Provides an explicit usage example ('add Sarah to the Doe family account'), which helps the agent understand when to invoke the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., if the member doesn't exist, first use create_member).

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