Reassign an agent's owner

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it warns that the tool 'Changes a live tenant', requires confirm: true, lists required permissions (CopilotPackages.ReadWrite.All), notes Graph beta and cs_login scope, and flags licensing, cloud, and verification limitations. This is substantial and honest disclosure for a mutating tool.

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?

Four dense sentences, each earning its place: the action, the use case, the live-change/confirm warning, and the environment/permission caveats. Information is front-loaded and there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 complex mutating tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers prerequisites, safety, scope, and limitations well. It does not describe the expected return value or success/failure shape, but it provides enough operational context for an agent to invoke it correctly with the schema's help.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds little beyond confirming that ownership is transferred via Entra object id and that confirm is needed for live changes, both of which are also in the schema. This matches the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 states a specific action ('Hand ownership of a catalogue agent to another user') and names the key identifier ('Entra object id'). It clearly belongs to the org-agent family and is distinguishable from siblings like cs_update_agent or cs_delete_agent by its ownership-transfer purpose and its 'used when the owner leaves' trigger.

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?

It gives an explicit use case ('Used when the owner leaves the organisation'), which is clear contextual guidance. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the trigger is specific enough for an agent to route correctly among the many sibling tools.

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