assign_to_group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation without mentioning side effects, error conditions, whether existing group memberships are preserved, or if the operation is atomic. This lack of transparency is a significant gap 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the core action 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?

For a tool with two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic action but omits important context such as the need for existing groups/users, expected behavior on duplicates, and error handling. Given the lack of annotations, additional context would improve 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?

The description mentions 'group_id' and 'users' which map to the schema's group_id and user_ids parameters, but it does not explicitly use the parameter names or add meaningful detail about their format or constraints. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate more by explaining the relationship and potential requirements.

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 uses the specific verb 'Add' and clearly identifies the resource ('users') and target ('a group by group_id'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as create_group, which focuses on creating groups rather than adding users to existing ones.

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 clearly conveys the tool's purpose: associating one or more users with a specific group. It implies use when the group already exists and users need to be added, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as not using it when creating a new group.

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