authSetUsers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Add' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't mention required permissions (though the schema hints at administrative privileges), potential side effects, error conditions, or what happens when adding duplicate users. It provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 brief but contains a confusing second sentence that references 'fabrics' parameter syntax which doesn't match this tool's actual parameter ('users'). This creates ambiguity rather than clarity. While short, the structure is problematic with irrelevant information that doesn't earn its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, permission requirements (beyond what's buried in the schema), or how it differs from sibling user management tools. The confusing second sentence further reduces completeness.

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 the 'users' parameter thoroughly. The description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - the second sentence about passing 'fabrics' appears to be a copy-paste error or irrelevant to this tool. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 one or more users') which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'authUpdateUser' or 'authDeleteUser' - it only indicates it's for adding users without clarifying when to use this versus updating existing users.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'authUpdateUser', 'authDeleteUser', and 'authGetUsers', there's no indication of when adding users is appropriate versus updating existing ones or retrieving user information. The second sentence is about parameter syntax, not usage context.

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