fastly_update_user_token

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the operation as 'High-risk mutation,' implying destructive/irreversible effects, and requires 'admin authorization,' signaling an auth prerequisite. It does not detail side effects or reversibility, but the risk warning and auth requirement are valuable beyond what the schema offers.

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, with high-impact wording front-loaded ('High-risk mutation'). It delivers key constraints in two sentences with no filler, efficiently communicating risk, purpose, and usage restrictions.

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 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how to properly set each parameter, especially the userId vs accountId choice, nor does it describe the effect of rotation (e.g., token invalidation). An agent would lack critical details for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It hints at 'scope' (likely tenantId, userId/accountId) and 'admin authorization' (likely authorizationKey), providing some mapping. However, it does not explicitly define each parameter or clarify the distinction between tenant/user and tenant/account, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 ('persist or rotate'), the resource ('one tenant/user or tenant/account Fastly token in Vault'), and explicitly excludes configuration use. It distinguishes itself from siblings like fastly_set_config, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 gives clear context: it is for token persistence/rotation and explicitly says 'Never use for configuration,' providing a when-not condition. However, it does not name specific alternative tools or elaborate on when other tools are preferred, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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