dataverse_audit_user_access

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral details: it resolves type codes, gathers multiple data in one call, and optionally includes privileges and record-level checks. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise (4 sentences) and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, second lists components, third mentions type resolution, fourth provides usage. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, what it returns, and how to use parameters. It does not mention prerequisites or limitations (e.g., required permissions), but the output schema covers return details. Adequate for the tool's 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?

The input schema already contains thorough descriptions for each parameter (e.g., mutual exclusivity of user_id and user_domain_name). The tool description adds context about the composite nature but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning 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 tool returns a composite access report for a Dataverse system user, listing specific components (identity, roles, team memberships, optionally privileges and record-level access). It distinguishes from sibling tools by positioning itself as a comprehensive single-call audit.

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 explicit instructions on parameter usage (user_id or user_domain_name, optional target_entity_set_name+target_record_id) and includes_privileges. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this composite tool versus individual sibling tools (e.g., get_user, retrieve_user_privileges).

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