external_squads_add_all_users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds only the "EVERY user" scale emphasis and says nothing about whether existing members are preserved, whether the operation is undoable, or what volume of users it touches — leaving the destructive mass-mutation semantics largely unelaborated.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the scope keyword is front-loaded. The capitalized "EVERY" is mildly stylized but functional, and nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema, the definition is minimally sufficient, but for a destructive all-users bulk operation it omits key context such as reversibility and the effect on current squad membership. An agent can call it, but cannot fully predict the blast radius.

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 100% and the single uuid parameter is fully documented in the schema as the external squad identifier. The description adds no information about the parameter (e.g. that it targets the squad being populated), so this is the baseline 3 where the schema does all the work.

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 ("Add") and resource ("an external squad") plus the scope ("EVERY user"), so an agent immediately knows this is a mass-membership mutation rather than a per-user add. It does not name the counterpart external_squads_remove_all_users, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative (adding specific users, or the remove_all counterpart). The agent gets no help deciding between this global operation and a targeted membership change.

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