beel_change_managed_access_level

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: false and idempotentHint: true, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: raising is only possible while unclaimed, billing is unaffected, OPERATE requires a signed fiscal representation for invoicing, and the 'manage_accounts' entitlement is required. It also describes the endpoint. No contradiction with annotations; the description enriches them.

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. The first sentence states the main action, followed by concise constraints and the entitlement requirement. It ends with the endpoint, which is useful. Every sentence adds value; no filler. The structure is logical and scannable.

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 no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the effect, the conditions for raising/lowering, billing implications, the special requirement for OPERATE, the required entitlement, and the endpoint. The input schema provides the enum details, so nothing essential for correct invocation is missing. Given the complexity of the operation, this is thorough.

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 has 0% parameter description coverage (based on context signals), so the description must compensate. The description explains the semantics of access_level extensively: what NONE, VIEW, OPERATE mean via the constraints and the fiscal representation note. It does not explicitly describe account_id, but that is self-evident as the account identifier. The description adds meaning beyond the schema, though it could explicitly name the parameters.

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 states the action: 'Updates the access_level you keep over an account you provisioned.' It names the specific resource (access level on a managed account) and the verb 'updates'. It also immediately distinguishes itself from related tools by clarifying the unique constraints around raising vs lowering, which prevents confusion with tools like beel_end_management or beel_put_owner.

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 description provides context on when this tool is appropriate: when you need to change your own access over a provisioned account, with specific rules about raising only while unclaimed. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the constraints and entitlement requirement give clear guidance on the intended use case. It lacks explicit exclusions or 'use this instead' statements, but the context is strong.

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