route_owned_users_dangerous_rights_to_any

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Dangerous Rights' and 'any node type', hinting at security/permission analysis, but doesn't disclose if this is a read-only query, a mutation, what 'route' entails (e.g., path enumeration, permission changes), or any side effects like data modification or rate limits.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it's slightly cryptic due to technical jargon like 'Dangerous Rights' and 'node type' without elaboration, which reduces clarity but not conciseness.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and complex security implications (implied by 'Dangerous Rights'), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, output format, and safety considerations, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and use it correctly.

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 0% with 1 parameter ('domain'), and the description adds no information about parameters. It doesn't explain what 'domain' represents (e.g., Active Directory domain, network domain), its format, or how it influences the routing. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema 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 states the tool routes 'owned & enabled user(s) with Dangerous Rights to any node type', which provides a verb ('route') and resource ('users with Dangerous Rights'), but it's vague about what 'route' means operationally (e.g., list paths, modify permissions). It distinguishes from many siblings that focus on listing or finding, but not clearly from other 'route_' tools like 'route_owned_users_dangerous_rights_to_groups'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for users with 'Dangerous Rights', but doesn't specify prerequisites, target scenarios, or compare to similar tools like 'route_owned_users_dangerous_rights_to_groups' or 'route_non_privileged_users_with_dangerous_rights_to_users'.

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