Update an operator's name, phone, or role in WatchGuard Cloud to keep account access and privileges current.
Update an existing WatchGuard Cloud operator's name, phone, or privilege role.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | No | ||
| phone | No | ||
| lastName | No | ||
| username | Yes | ||
| accountId | Yes | ||
| firstName | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the operation mutates an operator's fields, but it does not mention required privileges, async behavior (notable given the sibling get_operator_transaction_status), return/transaction semantics, or the effect on omitted fields.
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 a single focused sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, states the scope, and contains no filler or redundant information.
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 mutation tool with six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too thin. It omits response/status behavior, async implications, permission requirements, and the identification role of the required parameters, leaving an agent with too much to infer.
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 compensate. It adds some meaning by mapping 'phone' and 'privilege role' to parameters, but it does not explain that username and accountId identify the target operator, nor does it disambiguate 'name' into firstName and lastName.
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 uses a specific verb ('Update'), a specific resource ('an existing WatchGuard Cloud operator'), and lists the changeable fields ('name, phone, or privilege role'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as create_operator and delete_operator.
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 word 'existing' implies the operator must already exist, which weakly distinguishes this from create_operator. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.