users_extend_user_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 does so well: it discloses the status-dependent outcomes (EXPIRED recomputes from now and flips to ACTIVE; ACTIVE adds days to the existing date; DISABLED/LIMITED are extended without status change). It omits permission/authorization requirements and the confirm-gating behavior, which is only documented in the schema.

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 behavioral explanation is front-loaded and efficient, but the raw HTTP method/path header and the trailing "Tags: Users Controller" are noise that add no selection or invocation value for an agent.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested body, the description covers the important behavioral consequences of the operation across user statuses. It is missing the confirm-gating semantics and any notion of the response, but the core behavior an agent needs is present.

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 only 33%, with userId undocumented in both schema and description. The description does add behavioral meaning to days (added to existing expiration or computed from current date depending on status), but userId and the confirm flow are not clarified beyond structured fields, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Extend user expiration date") scoped to a single user via {userId}, which cleanly separates it from the bulk siblings users_bulk_actions_bulk_extend_expiration_date and users_bulk_actions_bulk_all_extend_expiration_date by implication. No sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied by the single-user scope but the description never states when to prefer this over the bulk extend tools or what preconditions apply. It explains the operation's behavior rather than when an agent should choose it.

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