route_non_priv_usrs_dang_rts_grps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions '[HIGH RAM]' which adds useful context about resource consumption, but doesn't disclose other critical behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, potential side effects, rate limits, or output format. For a tool with 'dangerous rights' in its name, more safety and operational details are needed.

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 brief (one sentence plus a note) and front-loaded with the core action, but the '[HIGH RAM]' note feels tacked on without integration. While not wasteful, it lacks the polished structure of a well-crafted description that efficiently conveys all necessary information in a logical flow.

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 the complexity implied by 'dangerous rights' routing, no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes 'dangerous rights', how routing works, what the output looks like, or any prerequisites. The '[HIGH RAM]' note is helpful but insufficient for a tool that appears to perform security analysis operations.

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 has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about parameters. The description doesn't explain what 'domain' means in this context, what format it expects, or how it affects the routing operation. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 ('Route') and the target resources ('non-privileged user(s) with dangerous rights to group(s)'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'route_non_privileged_users_with_dangerous_rights_to_users' or 'route_non_priv_users_dangerous_rights_to_comps', which route to different target types.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that route dangerous rights to different targets (e.g., users, computers, GPOs), there's no indication of why one would choose groups specifically. The '[HIGH RAM]' note hints at resource intensity but doesn't clarify usage context or exclusions.

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