Add or update a user

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states 'Unspecified fields are left unchanged', a key merge behavior for updates, and enumerates allowed permission values. It doesn't cover error cases or authorization requirements, but the primary side effects are transparent.

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 compact and well-structured: the first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides a structured field specification with enum values. No redundant or vague language.

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 nested user object and absence of an output schema, the description covers the primary fields and enum values. It does not clarify semantics for array fields (roles, teams, documentTypes) such as replace vs. merge, and the optional organization parameter is unexplained. These gaps prevent a perfect score.

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 only 50% (only the user parameter is described). The description compensates by detailing the user object's body fields, including optional markers, and the allowed enum for permission. It also clarifies the merge behavior. However, the 'organization' parameter is not mentioned, leaving its purpose undocumented.

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 'Add (by `login`) or update a user's access', a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like wflow_list_users, wflow_get_user, and wflow_delete_user. It also clarifies the upsert semantics explicitly.

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 gives clear context: this tool is for adding or updating a user identified by login. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the upsert purpose is unambiguous given the sibling tool set. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance are provided.

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