sigma_update_user_attribute_for_users

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false. The description adds value by stating that 'confirm=True' is required, which is a behavioral prerequisite not captured in annotations. It also clarifies that the operation removes assignments, giving more context than the annotations alone.

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 well-structured with a clear opening statement, parameter details, an example, and usage alternatives. Each sentence contributes value. It is slightly longer than minimal, but the length is justified by the need to explain parameters and the alternative tool.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, annotations (destructiveHint), and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It explains the required confirm flag, the exact effect (removing assignments), and how to reverse it, making the tool's behavior clear. No major gaps are present.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain user_ids with an example and notes the confirm requirement. However, attribute_id is not explicitly described; its purpose is only implied by the tool name and context. This leaves a gap in parameter understanding.

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's function: 'Revoke a user attribute assignment for specific users.' This uses a specific verb ('revoke') plus resource ('user attribute assignment') and target ('specific users'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sigma_set_user_attribute_for_users, which assigns rather than revokes.

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 explicitly provides guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'To assign (not revoke), use sigma_set_user_attribute_for_users instead.' It also mentions a workaround for a direct POST endpoint. This clearly differentiates the use case and gives a concrete alternative.

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