Recompute user

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does a fair job: it discloses the write-gate requirement, the dry-run fallback, and a validation rule (the call is refused when userName doesn't match the OID). It doesn't say what state is affected or what a recompute can change downstream, so it's solid but not exhaustive.

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?

Purpose and effect are front-loaded in the first clause, followed by parameter clarification and then constraints. The trailing sentence about naming people by display names is house-style guidance rather than tool-specific instruction, but it is short and does not bury the main point.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers gating, dry-run behavior, and identity validation, which is the operationally important surface. Return values need no explanation given the output schema exists.

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 100% and the schema already states 'must match oid' and 'login, not the full name', so the description largely restates the schema rather than adding new meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Recompute (reconcile) a user') plus the concrete effect: midPoint re-evaluates policies and propagates changes. That separates it from pure state toggles like enable_user/disable_user, though it never names a sibling by way of contrast.

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?

Gives real invocation context: it needs the write gate, and without it the call degrades to a dry-run preview, which also implies a confirmation step ('the person confirming it'). It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or routing to an alternative tool.

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