kaiten_add_sd_org_user

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 that a user is added, which implies a mutation, but it does not disclose idempotency, duplicate handling, permission overwrite behavior, auth requirements, or impact on existing memberships.

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, tight sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to communicating the core action, and it is appropriately sized for a straightforward add operation.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should supply more context about the expected response, error cases, or relationship to sibling tools. It currently provides only the bare action, leaving an agent without enough information to anticipate the tool's full 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents user_id, organization_id, and permissions. The description adds no further meaning, such as what the permission bitmask values represent or whether the operation is additive or replacing.

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 identifies the specific action ('Add a user') and resource ('a Service Desk organization'), which distinguishes it from group/space user tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with closely related siblings like kaiten_batch_add_sd_org_users or kaiten_update_sd_org_user, leaving slight ambiguity about scope.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool over alternatives such as kaiten_add_group_user, kaiten_add_space_user, or kaiten_batch_add_sd_org_users. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context clues beyond the tool's name and basic purpose.

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