update_freeradius_user

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds no extra behavioral context. It only repeats 'existing' and 'by ID', which are already in the schema, without disclosing side effects or retry implications.

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 a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It earns its place and is front-loaded with the key action and resource.

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 low complexity, the presence of an output schema, and the detailed input schema, the description provides the minimum viable context. However, it omits guidance on the apply_immediately parameter's practical effect (e.g., staging changes vs. applying now), which could be important for an agent deciding on multiple updates.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema already contains meaningful descriptions for all six parameters, including user_id referencing search_freeradius_users.

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 verb (Update), the resource (existing FreeRADIUS user), and the method of identification (by ID). It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like create_freeradius_user and delete_freeradius_user.

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 implies usage for modifying an existing user, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use create_freeradius_user for new users'). The context is clear but not elaborated.

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