Bulk Add Company Users To Projects

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it states that the endpoint 'Creates a new Directory records and returns the created object on success (HTTP 201)' and explains the non-update behavior for existing users. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false) are consistent, and the description enhances understanding of side effects.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action. It includes the endpoint and API version, which is useful but slightly extraneous. Overall, it is efficient and well-structured, with minimal redundancy.

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 tool has no output schema, and the description only mentions 'returns the created object on success (HTTP 201)' without specifying structure or error handling. Given the complexity of a bulk add with permission templates, more detail on partial failures or validation would be beneficial. However, annotations with openWorldHint=true suggest some standard behavior.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by clarifying the users parameter structure: 'array of existing company users with a permission template id and project id... The maximum amount per request is 50 user_id, project_id, permission_template_id triplets.' This compensates for the lack of schema detail (items: {}).

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 tool's purpose: 'allows company users to be bulk added to multiple projects with a permission template in one request.' It uses a specific verb ('bulk added') and resource ('company users to projects'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_company_user_to_project' (single user) and 'bulk_remove_company_users_from_projects' (opposite operation).

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 context on when to use the tool, mentioning the required parameters and that it is for performing 'the bulk add action on Directory records.' It also notes a behavioral caveat: 'If the user was already part of that project it will not update the assigned permission template.' However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or compare with alternatives beyond implying bulk vs. single add.

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