cipp_edit_user

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses high-impact consequences, reversibility by editing again, UPN reconstruction behavior, and a ~10s retry when a newly created account is not yet found in Graph. It also warns that editing without the current UPN would rename the account.

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 high-impact warning is front-loaded, and subsequent sentences each add distinct operational value: reversibility, confirmation guidance, UPN reconstruction, and retry behavior. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 high-impact mutation with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the critical behavioral risks: high impact, reversibility, confirmation, and UPN/account-rename caution. It does not address tenantFilter scope implications or permission/auth requirements, leaving minor gaps.

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 schema already explains all 8 parameters including licenses reconciliation and removeLicenses exclusivity. The description adds behavioral context around UPN lookup but does not add substantive per-parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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: it edits an existing user's properties, and explicitly names the categories that may change (directory attributes, usage location, roles, license eligibility). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as cipp_create_user, cipp_disable_user, and cipp_reset_password.

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?

It makes clear this is for modifying an existing user and includes a procedural safeguard: confirm with the user before invoking. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives like create, disable, or offboard, but the context for use is clear.

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