Изменение пользователя кластера

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds the HTTP method and the list of modifiable fields but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as whether omitted fields remain unchanged, whether privileges replace the entire list, or any permission requirements. It does not contradict the 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 a single, information-dense sentence that includes the core action, the target resource, the affected fields, and the exact REST endpoint. Every word adds value, with no wasted space or repetition.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects. The description plus the schema is sufficient to understand how to invoke it, but it lacks information about the response format, side effects, or behavior when optional fields are omitted. Given the absence of an output schema, a brief note on the return value would improve completeness.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all six parameters, including required fields and constraints (e.g., minLength for password, enums for privileges, MySQL-only note for instance_id). The description only restates three of the fields (password, privileges, description) and adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already offers.

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 states a specific action ('Изменяет параметры пользователя кластера') and clearly identifies the resource (cluster user). It also includes the HTTP PATCH endpoint, clarifying the operation type. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like create_database_admin or update_database_cluster, but the resource is distinct enough to avoid confusion.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_database_admin or delete_database_admin. It does not mention prerequisites, whether it partially updates fields, or any exclusions. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and 'PATCH' method.

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