User Set Admin

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and all it volunteers is that this is a 写操作 (write). It does not say whether privileges are applied immediately, whether revoking your own last admin account is blocked, what permissions the caller needs, or whether the change is auditable/reversible.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler — the action and its mutating nature come first. It is efficient, though the brevity is close to under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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 6-parameter write tool with no annotations, the description does not cover the boolean's polarity, connection parameters, or side effects of the privilege change. The existence of an output schema excuses it from describing return values, but the mutation semantics remain unexplained.

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 83%, so the baseline is 3. The description's 授予/撤销 pair is the only signal in the whole definition about how the otherwise undocumented boolean `on` maps to grant vs revoke, but it says nothing about host, port, scheme, or profile.

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 pair (授予/撤销) and resource (用户管理员权限), so an agent immediately knows this toggles admin status rather than editing general user fields. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near neighbours like user_mod or user_del, which an agent would need to disambiguate.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus user_mod, user_add, or user_group_set_users, nor any prerequisite such as needing an active session/profile. The only implied usage is the obvious grant/revoke case.

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