zitadel_grant_org_manager

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description corroborates and enriches this by explaining the merge semantics ('merges with any existing manager roles'), which tells the agent existing roles are preserved rather than replaced. It omits who is authorized to call it and whether super-admin privileges are required.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct payload (purpose, usage pattern, idempotency/default), with the core action front-loaded and no filler.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the common pattern, merge behavior, and defaults. The main remaining gap is caller authorization context (whether the invoking identity needs super-admin rights), which matters for a role-granting tool.

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 schema already documents both parameters, including the default and the meaning of ORG_OWNER. The description's mention of the default and 'ORG_OWNER = full org control' largely restates the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Grant org-level manager (administrator) role(s) to a user'), and the directionality of the verb cleanly separates it from the sibling zitadel_revoke_org_manager and from the read-only zitadel_list_org_manager_roles.

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?

Gives a concrete usage scenario ('For the no-super-admin pattern, grant ORG_USER_MANAGER to every Admin so they can manage any user'), which tells the agent when this tool is the right call. It never names the alternative tools (revoke_org_manager, list_org_manager_roles) or states when NOT to use it, so it stops short of explicit routing.

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