sigma_update_user_attribute_for_tenants

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds the confirm=True requirement, which is valuable behavioral context. It also clarifies the destructive action as revocation, consistent with annotations.

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 brief, front-loaded with the main action, and uses an example to clarify parameter format. Every sentence earns its place.

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 and destructive annotations; the description adds the confirm requirement and parameter example, making it reasonably complete. It doesn't describe return values, but the output schema covers that.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description explains tenant_org_ids and the confirm requirement, but does not explain attribute_id. This partial compensation is helpful but leaves a gap for a required parameter.

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 tool revokes a user attribute assignment for specific tenants, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from related sibling tools by focusing on revocation for multiple tenants.

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 indicates when to use it (to revoke assignments for specific tenants) but does not mention alternatives or exclusions. The confirm=True requirement is a clear precondition, but there is no guidance on choosing this over set or delete counterparts.

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