sn_admin

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

Annotations only say readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false; the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: that set_update_set *binds* subsequent writes to an update set, and that script/atf/set_update_set gate on confirm=true. That is real disclosure beyond the structured fields. It stops short of describing side effects or scope of a server-side script, holding it at 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?

A single front-loaded paragraph enumerating actions with minimal filler; the parenthetical confirm notes are terse and earn their place. It could be tightened by grouping the three confirm-requiring actions instead of repeating the phrase.

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 an eight-parameter, eight-action tool with zero schema descriptions, the description leaves too much undocumented — an agent cannot tell what 'text', 'suite', 'group', or 'limit' apply to for a given action. The output schema covers return values, but per-action parameter mapping is the critical missing piece.

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% across eight parameters, so the description carries the full burden and only partially delivers: it implies script/update_set usage per action and documents confirm, but text, group, limit, suite, and the interaction between action and its inputs are never explained.

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?

It frames the tool as an 'administrative surfaces' dispatcher and enumerates the eight actions, with verbs supplied for three of them (set_update_set 'bind writes', script 'run a server-side script', atf 'run tests'). But users/groups/roles/memberships are bare nouns with no stated effect, and nothing distinguishes this from siblings like sn_write or sn_code that plausibly overlap.

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?

It states confirm=true is required for three mutating actions, which is a useful precondition, but there is no guidance on when to pick this tool over sn_read (for listing users/groups) or sn_code (for running scripts). An agent has to infer the routing decision entirely.

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