route_owned_users_dangerous_rights_to_groups

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Route' but fails to clarify if this is a read-only analysis, a destructive operation, or involves mutations. Critical details like permissions needed, rate limits, or output format are omitted, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise with a single, direct sentence that front-loads the core action. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it efficient in structure, though this brevity contributes to informational gaps in other dimensions.

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 the tool name (involving 'dangerous rights' and routing), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not address behavioral risks, parameter meaning, or expected outcomes, making it incomplete for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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. It does not explain what 'domain' means in this context (e.g., Active Directory domain, network domain) or how it influences the routing process, failing 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 action ('Route') and target resources ('all owned & enabled user(s) with Dangerous Rights to group(s)'), providing a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'Route' specifically entails (e.g., mapping, transferring, analyzing paths) and doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'route_owned_users_dangerous_rights_to_any' or 'route_non_priv_users_dangerous_rights_to_groups', leaving ambiguity in scope.

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 is provided. The description lacks context on prerequisites, target scenarios, or comparisons to siblings such as 'route_owned_users_dangerous_rights_to_any' or 'route_non_priv_users_dangerous_rights_to_groups', offering only a basic statement without usage boundaries.

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