manage_users

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

With annotations already indicating destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, the description adds value by revealing the soft-delete behavior through the 'restore' action and by noting that delete requires user_id. It does not introduce contradictions, and the inclusion of restore is a meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured with a short introductory sentence, a clear bulleted action list, and a brief return note. It is somewhat longer than the minimum needed but every part serves a purpose, so it earns a 4.

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 the tool's complexity (7 actions, 10 parameters), the description covers all actions, required parameters, and the return type. It does not mention pagination defaults or edge cases, but the schema and output schema fill in those details, making this sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and each parameter already has a description indicating which actions it applies to (e.g., user_id is 'required for get, update, delete, restore'). The description's bullet list mostly rephrases this mapping without adding new semantic content, so it stays at the baseline 3.

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 'Manage Snipe-IT users with CRUD operations' and then enumerates all seven actions (create, get, list, update, delete, restore, me). This specific verb+resource combination, along with the exhaustive action list, fully distinguishes it from sibling tools like user_two_factor and user_assets.

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 phrase 'This tool handles all user operations' gives clear context for when to use it, and the bullet list further specifies each action's purpose. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., when to use user_two_factor instead), so it lacks the explicit exclusion/alternative guidance needed for a 5.

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