ghost_create_member

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Add' implies a mutation, it does not disclose side effects such as email sending (send_email parameter), subscription behavior, or any permission requirements. It also does not mention whether the operation is idempotent or what happens on duplicate email. The description is too thin to inform an agent about behavioral consequences.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. There is no extraneous information or filler. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values (e.g., the created member object), nor does it clarify behavioral nuances such as how newsletters or email sending are handled. An agent attempting to use this tool correctly would need to infer too much from the parameter names alone.

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 all 9 parameters are thoroughly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides. Per the rubric, with coverage above 80%, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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') and the resource ('member or subscriber'), making it unambiguous that this is a creation tool for members. It distinguishes itself from sibling create tools (ghost_create_post, ghost_create_tag, etc.) by explicitly naming 'member' as the target. This is a specific and non-tautological statement.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that ghost_update_member should be used for existing members, nor does it clarify scenarios where ghost_add_member_labels might be more appropriate. There is no context about prerequisites or when to avoid this tool.

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