Add User to Queue

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

Annotations already indicate write behavior (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotency. The description adds useful context about the prerequisite and notification effects. However, it doesn't clarify behavior for adding roles vs. users, duplicate members, or error handling when the queue/user doesn't exist.

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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core action and provides only essential context. Every sentence earns 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 simple mutation tool with no output schema and moderate parameters, the description covers the purpose, prerequisite, and practical implications. It lacks details on edge cases (duplicate members, nonexistent queue/user) but is otherwise sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 parameters are already documented. The description mentions 'by username and queue DeveloperName' but doesn't add meaningful detail beyond the schema. It doesn't clarify whether users and roles can be combined or how they interact.

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 a specific action: 'Adds a user to an existing Queue (GroupMember SObject) by username and queue DeveloperName.' It clearly identifies the resource (Queue/GroupMember) and the method, distinguishing it from sibling tools like sf_create_queue.

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 a key prerequisite: 'The queue must already exist (create via sf_create_queue).' This gives clear context on when to use the tool and points to an alternative for creation. It also explains the downstream effect (record assignment and notifications), aiding decision-making.

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