users_change_creator

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that this is a mutating 'move' operation, but does not mention permissions, irreversibility, side effects on the user, or failure states. The 'confirm: Required' note also misleads about the actual requirement, since the schema does not mark confirm as required.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action, followed by a compact parameter list. The Args section is arguably redundant with the schema, but it doesn't waste words.

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 state-changing operation with no annotations, this definition lacks enough context: it doesn't specify prerequisites, consequences, or correct confirm usage. The contradiction between the confirm note and the schema leaves an agent with ambiguous invocation requirements.

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 should carry parameter meaning. It does add useful semantics for username and new_creator, but confirm only says 'Required,' which is tautological and contradicts the schema — the schema lists confirm as optional with default false. This can cause incorrect invocation.

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 operation — 'Move a user to a different reseller/creator' — with a clear verb and target resource. It is unambiguous enough to separate it from most siblings, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from broader tools like users_modify.

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 given on when this tool should be used versus alternatives such as users_modify or users_convert_to_reseller. The description only states the action, so an agent has no context for choosing it over similar user-management tools.

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