sophos_create_tenant_admin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only reveals that an invitation email is sent. It does not mention required permissions, prerequisites (e.g., tenant must exist), whether the admin is immediately active, or any potential side effects or restrictions. This is insufficient for a creation operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and a key side effect.

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 5 parameters (4 required), the description lacks important context: prerequisites (tenant must exist, partner-level authentication), post-creation behavior (email sending, immediate admin usability), and differentiation from similar tools. The partner-level endpoint nuance is mentioned but not elaborated, leaving gaps in completeness 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%, so each parameter has a description. However, the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. For example, it does not explain the format or constraints for names or the role_id optionality. Baseline 3 applies due to full coverage without added value.

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 ('create'), the resource ('administrator for a specific managed tenant'), and includes a notable side effect ('will receive an invitation email'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like sophos_create_admin (which likely operates at a different scope) and sophos_invite_tenant_admin (which may only send an invitation without creation).

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 mentions 'using the partner-level endpoint', hinting at the intended context (partner-level vs tenant-level), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like sophos_create_admin or sophos_invite_tenant_admin. It provides implied context but lacks clear guidance on when or when not to use it.

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