Add Team 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. It discloses a key behavioral constraint: 'Only the lead role can add team members,' and explains the consequence of role assignment: 'Each member is assigned a role that determines their tool access.' This adds context beyond the schema's enum values about the significance of the role parameter, though it does not describe the exact return value or failure behavior.

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, consisting of two sentences that convey the purpose, the accepted member types, the role's significance, and the permission constraint. It is front-loaded with the action and contains zero redundant or filler language. Every sentence contributes essential 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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, 3 required) and the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the core semantics adequately: what it does, what role behavior is, and who can invoke it. It lacks explicit mention of failure modes or the result of a successful add, but for a straightforward 'add' operation with a clear schema, this is a reasonable level of completeness.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the 'role' parameter determines tool access, which provides meaning beyond the schema's simple 'Role assignment' description. It also clarifies that 'type' can be human or AI, reinforcing the schema. This contextual enrichment justifies a score above baseline.

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 tool's action: 'Add a team member (human or AI agent) to the clean-room project.' It specifies the verb ('add'), the resource ('team member'), and the context ('clean-room project'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like cleanroom_team_list or cleanroom_init by being the team member creation operation. It also clarifies the types of members (human or AI) and the role-based access system.

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 a clear usage condition: 'Only the lead role can add team members,' which tells the agent when this tool is applicable and the prerequisite role. While it does not explicitly name alternative tools, the inclusion of the role restriction effectively guides when to attempt the operation. The purpose is specific enough that usage versus listing or other operations is understood.

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