forcepoint_group_add_members

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool is 'Mutating' and mentions an important condition: 'requires authorizationKey when admin auth is enabled.' However, it does not explain potential failures (e.g., if users do not exist), idempotency, or response behavior. This provides some transparency but leaves gaps.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for a tool of moderate complexity.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is not complete. It omits parameter details, return value behavior, error conditions, and any prerequisites beyond auth. The provided info covers purpose but not enough of the operational context.

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%, so the description must compensate for all 4 parameters. The description mentions authorizationKey in passing but does not explain the roles of groupname, companyemail, or userId. The phrase 'Add existing users' implies that companyemail might identify users, but this is not explicit. Overall, little parameter meaning is added beyond the schema's raw fields.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Add existing users to a Forcepoint group.' This clearly states the action and distinguishes it from sibling tools like forcepoint_group_remove_members or forcepoint_group_create_or_update. The name itself is also descriptive, but the description adds clarity with the phrase 'existing users'.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to choose add_members over remove_members or create_or_update, nor does it state any explicit exclusions or preconditions (beyond the auth note). The 'Mutating' tag is a behavioral hint, not a usage guideline.

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