sophos_add_user_to_groups

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

The description adds no behavioral details beyond what annotations imply. Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false), but the description does not elaborate on side effects, permissions required, or reversibility. For an update operation, this is insufficient.

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 a single, clear sentence with no superfluous words. It is efficiently structured, though it could include a brief note on distinction from similar tools without losing conciseness.

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 simple mutation tool with good schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain the relationship to sibling tools like sophos_add_users_to_group or provide context on expected behavior (e.g., whether group_ids accepts a single ID or multiple).

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 all parameters described (user_id, group_ids, tenant_id). The description does not add further meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Add a user to one or more directory user groups,' specifying the action (add), resource (user), and target (groups). This clearly distinguishes from siblings like sophos_add_users_to_group (which adds multiple users) and sophos_create_user_group (create a new group).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not explain the difference from sophos_add_users_to_group, nor does it mention prerequisites like existing user or groups. The description is purely functional without usage context.

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