authentik_write

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. It states 'non-destructive' but omits side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. The transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 three sentences plus an example, front-loaded with core purpose. Every sentence adds value, though the example could be integrated into a single sentence. No wordiness.

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 no output schema and only 2 parameters with 0% coverage, the description does not specify return values, success/failure signals, or a comprehensive list of operations. The help command mitigates this, but completeness is moderate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the operation parameter and params as a JSON object with an example, but does not list all possible operation names or their parameter schemas beyond 'help'. Meaning is added but insufficient for full autonomous use.

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 creates or updates Authentik resources (non-destructive), and distinguishes it from authentik_flows_write which handles policy bindings. The verb ('create or update') and resource ('Authentik resources') are specific.

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 explicitly directs application/flow access gating to authentik_flows_write, and instructs calling with operation='help' to list operations. It provides an example but does not elaborate on when to use this tool vs read/delete tools.

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