beel_change_managed_access_level

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

Annotations only supply a safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, open world); the description adds substantive behavior beyond that: claim-state gating of raises, the manage_accounts entitlement, the fiscal-representation prerequisite for OPERATE, and the fact that billing is unaffected by level. It does not describe failure modes or whether lowering is reversible, so it stops short of a full behavioral picture.

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?

Bulleted, front-loaded with the action, and the endpoint is placed at the end as a locator. Slightly redundant: the billing fact appears both in the description and again inside the AccessLevel enum description, and the OPERATE/representation note is duplicated in the same way.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema and only safety annotations, the description covers the conditions, entitlements, and side-effect semantics an agent must know. It omits what a successful response contains and what error surfaces on an unmanaged or claimed account, but those gaps are minor.

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 access_level enum is fully documented in $defs and account_id carries a useful schema note about non-disclosure of managed accounts. The description nonetheless adds real meaning beyond the schema by tying OPERATE to the fiscal-representation requirement and by clarifying that level never affects billing. With 50% schema coverage this compensates adequately, though it says nothing further about the account_id argument itself.

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 (the access_level you keep over an account you provisioned), plus the concrete endpoint PATCH /v1/accounts/{account_id}/access-level. It is clearly distinguishable from provisioning/management siblings like beel_provision_account, beel_end_management, or the member-grant tools, since it is scoped to the provisioner's own access over a managed account.

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 explicit when/when-not conditions: raising is only possible while the account is unclaimed, and after the holder takes ownership only they can raise it. It also names the entitlement needed (`manage_accounts`) and the extra prerequisite for OPERATE (signed fiscal representation), which is exactly the routing information an agent needs before calling.

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