Sync Company Users

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

Annotations indicate not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent. The description adds context: requires Directory Admin permissions, returns the modified object, and includes specific constraints for country/state codes. No contradictions with annotations.

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 somewhat verbose with redundant sentences (e.g., 'Use this to update' and 'Updates the specified Directory records'). It could be more concise by removing repetition and focusing on key points.

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?

Given the tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and annotations with limited safety info, the description adequately covers purpose, permissions, parameter constraints, return value, and links to documentation. It lacks discussion of batch limits or error scenarios, but overall sufficient.

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% with basic descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the updates parameter as an array for directory operations, detailing country/state code constraints, and specifying required parameters beyond 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 tool creates or updates a batch of Company Users, using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling sync tools by specifying 'Company Users' and provides the exact endpoint.

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 mentions required permissions (Directory Admin) and references documentation for sync actions, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There are many sibling sync tools, but no comparison or exclusion criteria are provided.

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