User Group Add Users

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

由于没有提供注解，描述必须承担全部说明责任。它正确地将该操作标记为写操作，但没有说明重复用户会如何处理、是否保留现有成员、是否是原子的/部分失败的情况，或任何授权要求。

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?

一个前置的句子，没有冗余，并附有简短的写操作标记。对于这样的工具来说结构合理，尽管简洁性可能牺牲了有用细节。

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?

对于没有注解、没有同级工具消歧的变更工具，描述过于简短，尽管有输出架构，因此无需解释返回值。对于写操作而言，它缺少关键的避免意外使用和预期行为方面的上下文。

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?

所有 6 个参数的架构描述覆盖率均为 100%，因此架构已详细记录了 host、port、group、users、scheme 和 profile。描述没有为这些参数增加任何含义，对于高覆盖率的情况，基线分 3 是合适的。

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?

明确说明了动词和资源：向用户组添加成员。可以清楚看出与 user_group_del_users 和 user_group_set_users 的区别（添加操作与删除/替换不同），但它并未明确指向这些同级工具。

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?

没有说明何时使用此工具而非 user_group_set_users（该工具可能会替换整个成员列表），也没有给出前置条件、是否需要现有用户组或所需的权限。使用场景只能从“添加”一词中推断。

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