users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lists actions including create and invite (mutating) but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or irreversible actions. Minimal behavioral context beyond the action names.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the key verb 'Manage' and a list of actions, then defines 'Users'. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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?

Despite good schema coverage, the description is brief for a tool with 9 parameters and 4 actions. It doesn't explain what 'view details' returns, how roles/family associations work, or that certain actions require specific parameters. The overall behavior remains somewhat opaque, especially without an output schema.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all 9 parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema offers.

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 explicitly states the tool manages user accounts and lists the specific actions (search, view details, create, invite) plus defines what a user is, making the purpose clear and distinct from sibling tools like events or families.

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 implies usage for user-related actions but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The domain distinction from siblings is clear, but no usage context or exclusions are given.

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