Set Reseller User Package

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses blast radius that destructiveHint=false alone would not convey: the quota and limits of every domain under the user can change. It also documents the 422 failure mode and the authentication identity requirement, both of which are operationally essential and absent from structured 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then impact, then error and auth notes. No filler or restatement of the title, and each sentence carries distinct 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?

The tool has an output schema, full annotation coverage and fully described parameters, so the description only needed to add behavior, failure modes and auth context, which it does. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly appears to be missing.

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%, with both username and package documented including format and pattern constraints, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds only the cross-reference that package names come from list_packages and that a bad value surfaces as 422, which is marginal over the schema baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Moves a reseller user to a different package") plus the return value ("returns the updated user"). It is clearly distinct from update_reseller_user and from list_packages, which it names only as a validation reference.

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?

Gives a clear trigger (changing a user's package) and an explicit prerequisite: authenticate as the reseller with the plain reseller username, not while impersonating a user. It also routes the agent to list_packages when a 422 is returned. It stops short of contrasting with update_reseller_user, which an agent might otherwise consider for the same intent.

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