edubase_patch_user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that the operation is an enable/disable toggle, which is consistent with idempotentHint (setting active=true twice is idempotent). It doesn't add context about side effects, permissions, or what happens to the user's sessions/data when disabled, but the annotations cover the safety profile adequately.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It is efficient and free of fluff, though it could have added a brief note about the 'active' parameter without much cost.

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 toggle with full schema coverage and annotations covering idempotency and non-destructiveness, the description is mostly complete. However, it doesn't mention the return value (no output schema) or any behavioral nuances like whether disabling a user revokes sessions, which would be useful for an agent deciding to call it.

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 schema already documents both parameters ('user' and 'active'). The description adds the phrase 'enable or disable' which maps directly to the 'active' boolean, but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 states a specific verb ('Enable or disable') and resource ('a user account'), and identifies the user by 'user identification string'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like edubase_post_user (create) and edubase_delete_user (delete), though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 implies the tool is for toggling account status, and the 'active' parameter makes the usage context clear. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., create/delete user) or mention any prerequisites like admin permissions.

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