users_bulk_extend_expiration

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing further — no permission requirements, no atomicity/partial-failure behavior, no note that the change is additive (an increment) rather than an absolute set. It essentially restates the tool name.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. No redundancy, no restating of the title beyond what is needed to convey scope.

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 multi-user mutation tool with no output schema and an undocumented schema, the description is too thin. It omits the batch limit, partial-success behavior for up to 500 users, and what distinguishes it from the single-user and all-user variants.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. 'By days' usefully clarifies that extendDays is a delta rather than a target date, which is nontrivial. But it says nothing about the 1-500 userId batch cap or the signed/positive-only semantics of extendDays.

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 (extend) and resource (expiration date), scoped to 'specified users', so the agent knows this is a targeted bulk mutation. However it never distinguishes itself from the close siblings users_extend_expiration (single user) and users_bulk_all_extend_expiration (all users), leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 mention of prerequisites, and no reference to any alternative. With three near-identical expiration tools in the sibling list, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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