add_project_member

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds the dry_run default behavior, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., error if user is already a member), permission requirements, or what the 'preview' returns in dry run mode.

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 sentence that concisely states the purpose and key behavior (dry_run default). It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information, though it could be slightly expanded with usage notes without losing conciseness.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should ideally explain what the tool returns. It mentions 'returns a preview' only implicitly via dry_run parameter. Missing details on error cases, confirmation flow, or return format when dry_run=false. The schema covers parameters well, but overall completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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%, so baseline 3. The description does not add parameter-specific information beyond what is already in the schema (e.g., 'with a given access level' repeats the access_level parameter description). The dry_run default is mentioned but also appears in 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 the verb 'Add', the resource 'a user to a project', and the additional detail 'with a given access level'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'add_group_member' (adds to a group) and 'update_member_access_level' (modifies existing membership).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_group_member' or 'update_member_access_level'. The description implies usage for adding a new member but does not mention prerequisites (e.g., project existence, user existence) or conditions when not to use (e.g., user already a member).

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