admin_manage_person

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations: it warns that create_api_key returns the key only once, replaces any existing key, and should be treated as a secret. It also states the server will never elevate its own role or grant admin. These are critical behavioral disclosures that the annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false) do not capture.

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-organized: a one-sentence purpose statement, a context condition, and then focused security notes. It is detailed but every sentence serves a purpose, with no filler or repetition.

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?

The description covers most actions but omits create_person, which appears in the action enum. For a tool with five distinct actions, one significant action being unmentioned is a notable gap. The output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, but the missing action limits completeness.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description enriches parameter understanding by explaining the consequences of actions (e.g., create_api_key breaks existing keys) and the admin restriction, which adds meaning beyond the schema field descriptions. This justifies a 4.

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 opens with 'Instance-level administration' and lists specific actions: change roles, add board managers, mint/revoke API keys. This clearly identifies the tool's resource (people) and scope (instance-level), distinguishing it from project-level siblings like set_project_members.

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 explicitly notes the tool is disabled unless PLANKA_ALLOW_USER_ADMIN is set, providing a clear precondition. It implies use for instance-level tasks rather than project-level alternatives, but does not explicitly name any alternative tool or give when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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