setUserAccessControl

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses important behavioral traits: it performs a partial update (only passed flags change) and silently ignores out-of-permission flags. These behaviors are not captured in annotations and are essential for correct invocation, making the description highly transparent.

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 three short sentences, starts with the primary purpose, and immediately provides the two key behavioral nuances. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or repetition. The (Tags: Reseller) note is a useful additional context.

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?

The description is complete for a mutation tool with a rich schema and no output schema: it covers the action, partial-update semantics, permission behavior, and target resource. It does not mention edge cases like invalid user_id or clearing all flags, but these are not essential given the schema's detail. A slight gap is the lack of any statement about return values or errors, but the silent-ignore behavior partially covers error handling.

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 input schema already explains the requestBody, user_id, and the dashboard_menu_access flags. The main description restates the partial-update semantics already present in the schema, adding no new meaning beyond the structured fields. 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 clearly states the verb 'Enable or disable' and the resource 'dashboard menu access flags for a child user'. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like setUserExpiry (expiry) and setChildConcurrency (concurrency), both of which target different resource aspects.

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 provides clear usage context: partial updates ('Only the flags you pass are changed') and permission constraints ('Flags outside your reseller's permissions are silently ignored'). It lacks explicit alternatives, but no direct alternative exists among siblings, so the when-to-use is clear from the first sentence.

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