ldap_operations

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation. Description adds the prerequisite configuration note but does not disclose specific side effects of sync (e.g., user creation/updates) beyond action names.

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?

Well-structured with a leading summary, bulleted operations, and a return note. The 'Previously required CLI' sentence is slightly extra but adds helpful historical context; overall concise.

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 one-parameter tool, the description adequately covers prerequisites, operations, and return type. Given an output schema exists, it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 coverage is 100%, with a single parameter having an enum and its own description. Description adds no further parameter detail beyond repeating the actions, which are already self-explanatory.

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?

Description clearly states the tool manages LDAP synchronization and enumerates the two operations (sync and test), making the purpose specific and distinguishable from sibling tools focused on assets, users, etc.

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?

Provides clear context: LDAP must be configured before use, and mentions the tool replaces the previous CLI/web UI flow. It implies when to use but does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use.

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