users_bulk_all_extend_expiration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a bulk mutation, but it does not disclose potential side effects, irreversibility, scope boundaries (e.g., whether disabled or deleted users are included), or any confirmation requirements. For an operation affecting all users, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core action and scope efficiently, though more behavioral context would be warranted for a bulk-all mutation.

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?

This is a broad, potentially impactful operation with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is too minimal: it fails to clarify what 'ALL users' means in practice, whether the extension is additive, and what safeguards or limitations apply. An agent needs more context to safely invoke this tool correctly.

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?

The schema already fully documents the single 'days' parameter with a description and a minimum value, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional meaning about how 'days' interacts with expiration, which is acceptable because the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 ('extend'), a clear resource ('expiration date'), and the exact scope ('ALL users'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like users_bulk_extend_expiration and users_extend_expiration, which presumably target selected or single 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 phrase 'ALL users' implies the use case: this tool is for extending expiration dates across the entire user base, not for individual or selected users. However, it does not explicitly name any alternative tools or state when not to use it, leaving the routing mostly to inference.

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