Create a team member

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutation but not destructive. The description adds the admin-only permission requirement, which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like return values or side effects.

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 short sentences with no fluff. 'Only admins can do this' earns its place as a key permission constraint, making it appropriately front-loaded and concise.

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 create operation with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't mention required fields, the role enum, or any expected response. The admin restriction helps but leaves many operational gaps that the moderate schema coverage cannot fully bridge.

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 63%, which is moderate but not high enough to rely on entirely. The tool description provides no parameter semantics whatsoever, leaving the undocumented parameters (role, password, displayName) without additional clarity. The description adds no value over the schema.

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 'Add a member to the team' – a specific verb and resource. It implies creation and differentiates from update/delete/list by the action word 'Add', but it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or contrast with them, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_team_user or delete_team_user. The only additional context is 'Only admins can do this,' which is an authorization constraint, not a usage guideline.

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