sophos_add_endpoints_to_group

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

Without annotations, the description adds moderate value by noting that endpoints will inherit any policies assigned to the group. However, it omits other behavioral traits such as required permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 short sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating the action and noting policy inheritance. No redundancy or fluff. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 low complexity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the main action and a key side effect (policy inheritance), but does not mention how to obtain group_id or endpoint_ids, success indicators, or error conditions.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the description does not need to add much. It briefly reinforces that 'endpoint_ids' can contain multiple endpoints ('one or more'), which aligns with the schema's comma-separated format. No additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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 'Add one or more endpoints to an endpoint group' and distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'sophos_remove_endpoints_from_group' and 'sophos_add_users_to_group'. The verb+resource is specific and unambiguous.

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 (e.g., creating a new group vs. adding to an existing one). It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate.

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