Update Reseller User

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

Annotations already declare idempotency and non-destructiveness, yet the description still adds material context beyond them: partial-update semantics ('only provided fields are sent; the rest keep their current values'), a required authentication mode, and the meaning of a 404. The 404 note is exactly the kind of error-behavior disclosure that prevents blind retries.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action first and the auth constraint and error semantics layered after. Nothing is repeated for padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained; annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gaps an agent would care about for this mutation — which auth context to use, what happens to unmentioned fields, and how to interpret a 404 — are all covered.

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 patterns and the 'omit to keep current' semantics already documented per parameter. The description restates partial-update behavior but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Updates) and resource (a reseller user) plus the exact mutable surface (disk quota and/or password). That field enumeration distinguishes it from set_reseller_user_package and suspend/unsuspend_reseller_user without needing to name them.

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 real usage condition: 'call while authenticated as the reseller (plain reseller username), not while impersonating a user' — a genuine precondition an agent would otherwise get wrong. It lacks explicit routing to sibling alternatives (e.g. use set_reseller_user_package for package changes), so it stops short of 5.

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