panelica_ssh_users_patch_v1_ssh_users_id

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

The description explicitly states the call is mutating and changes server state, and it adds the accounts:write scope requirement. This adds some context beyond the annotations, though it stops short of describing side effects, reversibility, or failure behavior.

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 operation name and HTTP details. The scopes and mutating flags are useful; the category line is mildly redundant but not harmful.

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 mutating PATCH with an undocumented request body and no output schema, the description leaves the most essential detail—what fields are updatable—to the schema's 'see API docs' note. An agent cannot construct a well-formed update request from the description alone.

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 schema already documents id as a path parameter and the body as an open JSON object whose schema is not statically declared. The description itself adds no field-level meaning, so it meets the baseline but doesn't help an agent learn which SSH user fields can actually be updated.

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 names the operation ('Update SSH user') and the HTTP method/path (PATCH /v1/ssh-users/:id), telling an agent this modifies an existing SSH user. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling POST/DELETE tools, but the PATCH verb and ':id' strongly differentiate it.

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 tool versus alternatives such as creating, deleting, suspending, or unsuspending an SSH user. The 'Required scopes' line is a prerequisite, not a selection guideline.

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