add_group_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that explicit confirmation is required and that only non-default groups are targeted, which is useful. However, it does not mention what happens if confirmation is false, whether the operation is idempotent, or any permission requirements. These gaps were not addressed.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the core action and constraint. Every word contributes, with no filler or 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?

For a tool with three required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and one behavioral condition. However, it omits details about return values, failure cases, and prerequisites (e.g., group must exist). It is minimally sufficient but not comprehensive.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It maps the action to groupId, userId, and confirm conceptually, but it does not explain each parameter individually. The phrase 'explicit confirmation' does imply the confirm boolean, but it does not clarify that confirm must be true or describe the exact format of user/group IDs.

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 action ('Add a user') and the target resource ('a non-default group'). It also includes a key condition ('after explicit confirmation'), distinguishing it from other group-related tools. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool: for adding a user to a non-default group with explicit confirmation. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools (e.g., remove_group_user) or specify when not to use it beyond the non-default constraint. Usage context is implied but not fully elaborated.

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