add_site_roles

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

With no annotations, the full burden falls on the description. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing roles), idempotency, rate limits, or authentication needs beyond listing parameters. The Raises section is generic.

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 concise, with a clear upfront action and a bulleted parameter list. The Raises section adds minimal value but is not verbose. Could be more efficient by integrating parameter descriptions into the main text.

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 7 required parameters and no annotations, the description lacks critical context. It does not explain the 'self' field, the interaction between access levels, or the tool's behavior on failure. The existence of an output schema is not utilized.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides basic explanations for most parameters (e.g., 'The URL of your site'), but lacks depth and does not clarify the 'self' parameter or relationships between flags like is_administrator and is_read_only.

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 'Delegate site access to a user', using a specific verb and resource. Among siblings like get_site_roles and remove_site_role, this tool is distinct as the creation/delegation operation.

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 (e.g., when to use get_site_roles or remove_site_role). There are no prerequisites, conditions, or usage scenarios mentioned.

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