featured_fields_replace_users

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the destructive behavior: 'Running this API will delete all existing user names.' It also notes license requirements and the HTTP endpoint. It does not describe the response format or whether the action is reversible, but the key warning is present.

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 well-structured: a clear short title, a concise explanation, a prominent warning, license info, endpoint, and an example. The example is lengthy but necessary to understand the nested structure. Every part contributes to the agent's ability to invoke the tool correctly.

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's nested schema and lack of output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for selection and invocation. It states the purpose, the destructive consequence, the license requirement, and the exact request format via example. It does not mention the return value, but that is not essential for this operation.

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 description coverage is 0% for the top-level request_data, but the description provides a complete example request body with fields and comments. The schema already describes value and comment, so the example adds structural context rather than new semantics. The description does not explain why request_data is necessary or any constraints beyond what the schema shows, but the example compensates partially.

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: 'Replace Featured Users' and 'Replace the featured users listed in your environment.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like featured_fields_replace_hosts or featured_fields_replace_ip_addresses by explicitly naming 'users' as the target.

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 makes the purpose clear ('Replace the featured users listed in your environment') and adds critical context about the destructive action ('Running this API will delete all existing user names'), which implicitly warns against using it for incremental updates. It also specifies required licenses. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools, but none exist for the same resource.

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