Изменить роль пользователя

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false foot, so the description's mention that assigning the same role changes nothing is redundant. However, it adds valuable clarification that access is neither granted nor revokedanders, and that the tool returns API confirmation and balance info. This goes beyond the structured hints without contradicting them, though it omits auth/permission requirements.

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 compact three-sentence block that is front-loaded with the core action, then clarifies edge cases (no-op on same role) and exclusions (does not grant/revoke). Every sentence adds value with no fluff, making it an excellent model of concise, informative description.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, its limitations, alternatives, and return value. It could mention authentication/permission requirements, but the explicit scope and no-op behaviorobis make it nearly complete. The lack of output schema is compensated by the mention of API confirmation.

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 schema descriptions cover 100% of the two parameters, so the description does not add parameter-specific detail. That is baseline adequate: the schema already explains each parameter, and the description does not conflict or need to compensate further. A score of 3 reflects this sufficient but non-enhanced coverage.

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 the tool changes the role of an existing user who already has access to the advertising account. It explicitly contrasts with add_user (granting access) and delete_user (revoking access), and notes that re-assigning the current role is a no-op. This unambiguously differentiates it from sibling tools and defines its precise 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?

It explicitly names the alternatives for granting (add_user) and revoking (delete_user) access, telling an agent when NOT to use this tool. It also establishes the precondition that the user must already have account access Mendapatkan. This is strong usage guidance, though it could add when to use as the primary choice, which is clearly implied.

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