vk_put_teams_05543c7af562

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses authentication requirements and camelCase/snake_case aliases, but it inaccurately describes the body field as 'optional' when the schema marks it required, which is a significant misleading statement. For a mutating PUT operation, side effects or authorization details are not mentioned.

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 front-loads the purpose and includes several useful pieces of information, but it repeats 'Add a user to a team' verbatim, wasting a sentence. Overall structure is acceptable but not tight.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, this description is not fully complete. The body field's required shape is unclear, and the 'optional body' misstatement could lead an agent to omit a required payload. Authentication and aliases are covered, but the contradiction undermines execution confidence.

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 coverage is 100% (both id and body have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful context about top-level path/query fields and parameter aliases, but the 'optional body' statement conflicts with the schema's required list and the body's exact structure remains vague.

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 verb and resource: 'Add a user to a team' and identifies the exact REST endpoint 'PUT /teams/{id}/members'. This distinguishes it from sibling team-related tools (e.g., vk_get_teams, vk_post_teams) by specifying the exact operation and resource.

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 implies usage whenever a user needs to be added to a team via the raw Vikunja REST proxy, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The raw proxy context hints at a low-level use case, but no explicit guidance is given.

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