Manage User

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the tool is idempotent by name (returning 'already_exists' on duplicate add). However, it does not disclose behavior for remove/enable/disable (e.g., whether remove is permanent or reversible) beyond what annotations 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 concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the action list, and a clear idempotency note. No unnecessary words.

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 tool's complexity (multiple actions, 8 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose and idempotency but lacks details on return values or error cases per action. Annotations partially compensate, but more context (e.g., what happens on remove if user doesn't exist) would improve completeness.

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 describes all parameters thoroughly. The description adds only the note about idempotency tied to the 'name' parameter, which is useful but incremental. 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: adding, removing, enabling, disabling, or setting passwords for local RouterOS users. It is specific and matches the tool name, but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like manage_user_group, which could cause slight ambiguity.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_users for enumeration, manage_user_group for group management). The description merely lists actions without contextual advice, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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