ftrack_add_user_security_role

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action, not side effects, idempotency, potential errors, security permissions, or what happens if the role already exists. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient 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, grammatically complete sentence with no redundant words. It is properly sized for the simple operation it describes, though it could add value without bloating.

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 fully described in the schema and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose. However, it lacks context about return values, error behavior, prerequisites (e.g., user and role must exist), or relationship to sibling tools, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters described ('User ID' and 'Security role ID to add'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and identifies both the object ('security role') and the target ('user'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like ftrack_remove_user_security_role and ftrack_update_user_security_role. It is immediately obvious what the tool does.

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 implies the use case by its verb and object, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites. With siblings like 'grant security role project' and 'update user security role', a note about intended use would help, but the name is self-explanatory enough for a minimal 3.

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