Add Author Alias

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

Adds a requirement not present in structured fields: 'Requires admin role', which materially affects whether an agent should attempt the call. Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, so the remaining gaps (what happens if the alias already points elsewhere) are modest.

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?

Three short sentences: what it does, permission prerequisite, and motivation. Everything is front-loaded and no sentence is redundant.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers purpose, auth requirement and motivation adequately. It stops short of explaining collision behavior when an alias is re-mapped, which is the one thing an agent might still need.

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 per-parameter descriptions and examples, so the schema carries the semantics. The description reinforces the alias→canonical direction of the mapping but adds no format or precedence detail beyond that; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: maps a raw author name to a canonical identity, plus the downstream purpose (attribution consolidation). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from close siblings like team_resolve_author or team_consolidate_authors, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

'Used to consolidate attribution ... when one person uses multiple usernames' gives a clear triggering condition for use. However, no when-not guidance and no pointer to the sibling that reads or removes aliases (team_list_author_aliases, team_remove_author_alias) or resolves names at query time.

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