add-users-to-role

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

With no annotations present, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the action. It does not clarify whether users are appended to existing role membership or replace it, whether users must already exist, or what the tool returns after success.

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 short sentence with no extraneous words, achieving maximum conciseness. However, its brevity comes at the cost of being tautological with the tool name.

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 simple two-parameter add operation, the schema covers parameter semantics well. Yet the description lacks context about expected behavior, return values, and usage scenarios, which is especially noticeable given the absence of an output schema and annotations.

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 provides full descriptions for both parameters (userIds as array of objectIds, roleName as name), yielding 100% coverage. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, 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 'Add users to a role' is a direct restatement of the tool name 'add-users-to-role' with hyphens replaced by spaces. It contains no new information about scope, side effects, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'remove-users-from-role'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other role-related tools such as create-role, get-role, or remove-users-from-role. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative recommendations are provided.

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