Yougile Users

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

Annotations only include openWorldHint=true, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully labels operations as read vs admin, indicating which are mutating, but it does not describe consequences of update/remove, confirmation requirements beyond the schema's confirm field, or any side effects.

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 compact, front-loaded with the resource scope, and organized as a scannable operation list with access levels. The mixed-language notes add minor noise but do not undermine usefulness.

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 ten-operation dispatcher with no output schema and generic params, the description provides operation names, access levels, and a route to parameter details via yougile_help. It still leaves gaps around operational semantics, expected response shapes, and how this tool relates to sibling tools, so it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 67%, and the params field is generic, so the description's instruction to call yougile_help('users.<operation>') for parameters is the main way the agent learns about operation-specific inputs. However, this instruction is largely redundant with the schema's own pointer to yougile_help, and the description does not enumerate or explain any actual parameter values.

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 identifies a clear resource ('Company employees and departments') and enumerates specific operations (list, invite, me, get, update, remove, departments variants), making the tool's scope concrete. It does not explicitly frame this as a multi-operation dispatcher namespace, but the operation list itself disambiguates the purpose well.

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 gives each operation an access level ([read] vs [admin]), which implies when privileged use is needed, and instructs the agent to call yougile_help('users.<operation>') for parameters. However, it does not explain when to choose yougile_users over sibling tools like yougile_company or yougile_help, nor does it state exclusions or alternative conditions.

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