gc_add_user_to_groups

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the creation aspect and dry-run preview, but omits details like additive vs overwrite behavior, permission requirements, and side effects. The schema fills some gaps (e.g., overwriteExisting), but the description does not integrate them.

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 very concise (one sentence plus a fragment). It front-loads the primary action. However, it could benefit from a slightly more structured format to improve readability.

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 5 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain the overall behavior, such as whether the operation is additive or replaces groups, permission requirements, or the effect on existing memberships. The schema helps, but the description lacks necessary context.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description only adds value for the 'dryRun' parameter, comparing it to preview. Other parameters rely solely on schema descriptions, which are adequate but not enhanced by the description.

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 user to groups), the resource (user and groups), and the special behavior of creating a new user if absent. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'gc_add_to_groups' by highlighting the import/creation aspect.

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 implies this tool is used when a user might not exist, mentioning 'creates new at absence'. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like 'gc_add_to_groups', nor does it provide when-not or exclusion criteria.

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