squads_add_all_users

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scale context with 'EVERY user', which matters for a mass mutation, but says nothing about reversibility, permission requirements, or side effects on existing squad membership.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the scope constraint front-loaded before the alternative-tool routing. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the definition covers purpose and routing adequately. The remaining gap is the unexplained uuid parameter, which the schema does not compensate for either.

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?

There is one parameter (uuid) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden. It only implies the uuid is a squad identifier via 'to an internal squad' and never explicitly states that the uuid is the target squad, leaving the parameter meaning ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb (add), resource (users), and scope (EVERY user) to an internal squad. It also pins the sibling it is not (squads_add_many_users for selected users), so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative (squads_add_many_users) and the condition that selects it (selected users vs every user). The internal-squad scope also implicitly routes away from external_squads_add_all_users.

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