aap_add_user_to_team

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive. The description adds that it returns a JSON confirmation, which is useful, but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, or prerequisite conditions. Given the annotations, this is acceptable but not richly detailed.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes clearly structured Args and Returns sections. No unnecessary words or redundant 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 simple two-parameter tool, the description is complete enough. It states the action, parameters, and return type. It doesn't cover edge cases or permissions, but the complexity is low and annotations provide basic safety hints. The output schema presence (indicated by context) reduces the need to explain return values in detail.

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 input schema has no descriptions for parameters, only titles and minimums. The description compensates by explaining team_id as 'Team ID' and user_id as 'User ID to add,' clarifying the latter's role. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though it could be more expansive.

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: 'Add a user to an AAP team.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the name also aligns. Among sibling tools like aap_remove_user_from_team, the purpose is unambiguous.

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 clearly implies usage: when you need to add a user to a team. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context of sibling tools makes the appropriate scenario evident. No exclusions are stated, so it's not a 5.

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