plan_update_user

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only says 'Plan' without explaining what planning means in this context. It doesn't disclose whether this is a dry-run, whether any data is mutated, what the output schema contains, or what the 'plan' is used for. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 sentence with no wasted words, which is concise. However, it is under-specified; brevity is achieved at the cost of necessary information. It front-loads the purpose but omits critical usage and parameter details, making it less useful despite its compactness.

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 tool with three required parameters (including an open-ended patch object) and no annotations, the description is markedly incomplete. It doesn't explain the role of 'panel', the structure of 'patch', or the significance of 'plan' in the broader PasarGuard workflow. The presence of an output schema doesn't excuse the lack of context, as the description doesn't even mention 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds almost no parameter meaning. The only hint is 'ID-based' which weakly suggests user_id serves as the identifier. The 'patch' object is completely unspecified—its properties, allowed keys, and format are all unclear. The tool fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 action ('plan') and the target resource ('user update'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like plan_create_user and plan_delete_resource. However, the phrase 'current ID-based PasarGuard route' is ambiguous and doesn't fully explain what 'plan' entails. Still, the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the plan/apply workflow apparently shared with siblings like apply_change, nor does it clarify that this tool only plans an update and doesn't execute it. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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