sn_manage_group_members

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions actions but omits details like idempotency, permissions required, error handling, or return format of list action. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 efficient: one introductory sentence plus a bullet list of actions. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the core functionality is front-loaded. No unnecessary words.

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 simplicity (3 parameters, 3 actions) and lack of output schema, the description covers the main operations. It indicates that members are required for add/remove. However, missing details like list return format or behavior for duplicate/absent members slightly reduce 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 67%. The description adds marginal value: it clarifies that 'members' is required for add/remove and mentions 'one or more users', but largely repeats schema information. No additional syntax or format details are provided.

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 adds/removes members or lists current members, with explicit action options. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sn_create_group or jira_manage_group_members by focusing on ServiceNow group member management.

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 lists actions but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify when to use this vs. sn_create_group or sn_get_group. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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