users_bulk_actions_bulk_all_extend_expiration_date

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing: it echoes the HTTP route and one line of intent. It does not warn that this is an unbounded mutation touching every account, whether it is reversible, or what happens to users with no expiration set. The confirm/preview behavior is only documented in the schema, not the description.

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 one substantive sentence is front-loaded and clear, but the verbatim POST route and the auto-generated 'Tags: Users Bulk Actions Controller' line add no decision-relevant 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?

This is a high-impact bulk mutation over all users with no annotations, no output schema, and only half the parameters documented. The description never covers return behavior, blast radius, or confirmation semantics, leaving the agent under-informed for the operation's complexity.

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 50%; the confirm parameter is explained in the schema while extendDays carries only min/max bounds. The phrase 'by days' gives extendDays its meaning (integer day offset), which is marginal added value, and the nested body shape is left to 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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: extend the expiration date for every user by a number of days. The 'for all users' scope implicitly separates it from the per-user and per-selection siblings, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative routing is given. An agent could infer that 'all' means every user, but nothing tells it when to prefer this over users_bulk_actions_bulk_extend_expiration_date or users_extend_user_expiration_date.

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