assign_users_to_groups

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Assign') but doesn't cover critical traits like required permissions, whether assignments are additive or replace existing ones, error handling for invalid inputs, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (mutation with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output expectations, error cases, and how it differs from siblings. For a tool that modifies user-group relationships in bulk, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by hinting at the attribute-based logic ('based on attributes'), but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples beyond what the schema's descriptions offer. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Assign') and resources ('multiple users to groups'), specifying it's based on attributes. It distinguishes from 'assign_user_to_group' by indicating bulk assignment with attribute-based logic, though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling. The purpose is specific but could be more precise about the attribute-driven mechanism.

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 like 'assign_user_to_group' (for single assignments) or 'bulk_user_import' (for broader operations). It mentions 'based on attributes' but doesn't clarify prerequisites, exclusions, or ideal scenarios, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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