add_agent_chat_participant

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

No annotations provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions role assignment and default, and that a success message is returned, but does not disclose rate limits, idempotency, or error conditions (e.g., duplicate participant). Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 structured with intro, conditions, list, suggestion, Args, and Returns. Every sentence adds value, though the list of acceptable additions could be more compact. Clear and well-organized.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 params, default role, prerequisites), the description covers the action, prerequisites, parameter details, discoverability hint, and return value. An output schema exists, so return structure is not needed. Complete for agent decision-making.

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 0%, so the description fully explains all three parameters in the Args section: chat_id, participant_id, and role with allowed values and default. This adds critical meaning beyond 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 participant (agent or user) to a chat room.' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_my_chat_participant' by specifying the chat room context and participant types.

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 explicit conditions: the acting agent must be owner/admin, lists who can be added (sibling agents, global agents, owner), and suggests using 'list_agent_peers' to discover participants. This gives clear guidance on when and how to use the tool.

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