panelica_mysql_users_patch_v1_mysql_users_id

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

The description adds behavioral context by explicitly stating 'Mutating: changes server state' and 'Required scopes: databases:write', which goes beyond the annotations. It does not detail consequences like irreversibility or what happens to unspecified fields, but the annotations already carry the basic read/idempotency/destructive flags, and there is no contradiction.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core operation. Every line adds value: HTTP method, category, required scopes, and mutation behavior. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema details.

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?

This is an opaque-body PATCH tool with no output schema, and the description does not explain what fields can be updated or even that the body is needed for a meaningful request. It covers auth and mutating behavior but leaves the agent unable to construct a correct request without consulting external API docs.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat them. However, the body parameter is opaque ('Schema not statically declared'), and the description adds no field-level meaning. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the documented surface.

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 and resource: 'Update MySQL user' with HTTP PATCH /v1/mysql-users/:id. This clearly separates it from GET/DELETE/POST MySQL-user tools, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling change-password tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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 to use this tool versus create, delete, or change-password sibling tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing. The only usage signal is the implied 'use this to update a MySQL user' from the title.

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