acc_import_project_users

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

The description discloses the asynchronous nature ("asynchronous server job") and the batch limit (200 members), which are important behavioral traits beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not contradict annotations. Missing details like failure handling or partial success, but the annotation already indicates mutation, and the async disclosure adds significant value.

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?

Two concise sentences with the key information front-loaded. No wasted words, and the async note is efficiently placed in parentheses.

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 bulk async operation, the description covers the essentials: what it does, scale, and async behavior. An output schema is present, so return values are likely documented elsewhere. It could mention job status tracking or error scenarios, but the description is adequate for a tool with this complexity.

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 the users_json parameter is already well-documented with structure and defaults. The description adds minimal extra parameter context (just "from a list"). Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles 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 tool's action: "Bulk-add up to 200 members to a project in one call." This uses a specific verb and resource, and the scope (bulk vs. single) distinguishes it from the sibling tool acc_add_project_user. The title also reinforces the purpose.

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 gives a clear use case: "Good for mobilizing a full project team from a list." This implies it's for bulk operations, implicitly contrasting with single-user tools like acc_add_project_user. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so a small deduction.

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