users_bulk_extend_expiration

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action ('extend expiration date') but does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, how the extension is applied (relative to current expiration), or any impact on subscriptions. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient behavioral transparency.

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, direct sentence: 'Bulk extend expiration date for selected users'. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, wastes no words, and is appropriately short. It achieves maximum conciseness without sacrificing the core message.

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?

The description lacks essential context for a bulk mutation tool. It does not clarify that the operation applies only to the specified users, how the extension interacts with existing expiration dates, or any potential side effects on subscriptions or other settings. With no output schema and no annotations, a more complete description would be expected to guide the agent effectively.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for both required parameters (days and userIds), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter details, so it earns the baseline score of 3. There is nothing wrong, but also no added value over the schema.

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 clearly states the action: 'Bulk extend expiration date for selected users'. It names the resource (expiration date) and the verb (extend), and 'selected users' implicitly distinguishes it from bulk-all operations like users_bulk_all_extend_expiration. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the singular users_extend_expiration or mention any of its siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus closely related siblings such as users_extend_expiration (single user) or users_bulk_all_extend_expiration (all users). There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or selection criteria for choosing the bulk-selected variant. This is a significant gap given the large number of sibling tools.

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