add_or_update_team_membership

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It discloses the permission requirement and the dual add/update behavior, but does not describe response format, error cases, or side effects. The permission check adds valuable context beyond the schema, warranting a 4.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the core action and include a documentation link. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, required permissions, and a link to official documentation. It lacks examples or error handling details, but the provided information is sufficient for most use cases.

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 is 3. The description adds marginal value by explaining the effect of the 'role' parameter via 'update their team role', but does not describe each parameter. Since the schema already provides clear parameter descriptions, the description does not need to compensate significantly.

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 user to a team or update their team role.' This identifies both the resource (team membership) and the specific operations (add/update), distinguishing it from sibling tools like remove_team_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?

The description provides a key prerequisite by specifying required permissions ('Requires org-owner or team-maintainer permission'), which helps the agent know when the tool can be used. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool compared to other membership tools.

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