users_modify

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose important behavior such as empty strings leaving fields unchanged, 'unlimited' or numeric values, ON/OFF toggles, and confirm being required. However, it does not mention permissions, potential side effects of changing limits, or error behavior, so the behavioral picture is incomplete.

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 tightly structured: purpose statement, one global behavior note, then a compact argument list. Every sentence adds useful information, and the most important caveat about empty strings is front-loaded. There is no filler or redundancy with the schema.

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 nearly complete for a 10-parameter tool: it explains every parameter, notes the required confirm flag, and the output schema covers return-value expectations. The main gap is that the confirm parameter's accepted value format is not specified, and no permission or prerequisite information is given beyond 'existing user.' Overall it is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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 fully compensate for the schema's lack of parameter meaning. It does so by documenting all 10 parameters, including accepted value formats such as 'MB or unlimited', 'ON | OFF', and the empty-string behavior. This is exactly the kind of parameter-level guidance that the schema fails to provide.

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 a specific verb and resource: customize limits on an existing user. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like users_create and users_suspend by using the phrase 'existing user' and by listing the exact limit fields being modified. The reference to CMD_API_MODIFY_USER adds endpoint-level clarity without ambiguity.

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 implies when to use the tool: when modifying limits on an existing user rather than creating one. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer other tools such as users_create, users_change_password, or users_suspend. The guidance is mostly implicit and lacks exclusionary routing.

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