fonzip_users

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

Annotations already mark this tool as destructive and non-read-only, and the description confirms this by mentioning create, update, and delete operations. It adds some behavioral context by naming the person-centric subresources, but it does not disclose side effects, what deletion affects, authentication needs, or other consequences beyond what the annotations already imply.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the resource and core operations before enumerating related data areas. It is compact and free of filler, though the long semicolon-separated list makes it slightly less scannable than a structured summary would be.

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?

This is a very complex tool with 46 parameters, 20+ actions, nested search/update structures, and no output schema, but the description only provides a high-level scope. It does not explain how to choose among actions, what actions are available beyond the enum, what return values look like, or how pagination and filtering work. The schema fills in parameter details, but an agent still lacks adequate contextual guidance for correct tool invocation.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents every parameter in detail, including action-specific required fields. The description itself contributes no parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the strong schema coverage. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema, not the description, carries the semantic load.

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 identifies the resource as members/donors (persons) and lists the main operations: listing/searching, detail, create, update, delete, plus related person data like timeline, tags, donations, dues, tickets, and form answers. This gives an agent a solid idea of the tool's scope, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like fonzip_donations or fonzip_tags, which cover overlapping subresources.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools. The description simply states the resource and operations, leaving the agent to infer that person-level operations belong here. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, which is a significant gap for a large tool with many related sibling tools.

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