security-set-user

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. But the description adds nothing beyond the annotation baseline: it doesn't disclose that 'identity' must reference an existing account, that unspecified properties are left untouched, whether password changes here bypass or duplicate security-set-user-password, or what happens on a missing user.

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?

A single short sentence with no padding or redundancy. It's tight, though its brevity is achieved by omitting information rather than by efficient phrasing.

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?

An 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, sitting in a crowded family of user-mutation siblings, needs more than one sentence. There is no guidance on partial updates, required identity resolution, or the relationship to security-set-user-password, security-enable-user, and security-disable-user.

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 every one of the 11 parameters is already documented, and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema, contributing nothing about field interaction or partial-update semantics.

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 clear verb (Updates) and resource (Sitecore user account properties), distinguishing it from read-only siblings like security-get-user. However, it doesn't differentiate from the dense set of user-mutation siblings (security-set-user-password, security-enable-user, security-disable-user, security-unlock-user), so an agent can't tell from the description alone whether this is the general updater or the specialized one.

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 when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. Given the sibling list contains security-set-user-password, security-enable-user, security-disable-user, and security-unlock-user, an agent faces genuine ambiguity about which tool handles a given mutation, and the description resolves none of it.

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