hmc_modify_user

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It reveals partial-update semantics, the effect of enable=True/False, and that the tool returns the updated user resource dict. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but the described behaviors are meaningful and go beyond what the schema provides.

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 concise, with four sentences that each add value: purpose, partial-update behavior, enable semantics, and recommended pre-check. It is front-loaded with the core verb and resource, and there is no unnecessary filler.

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, so the description does not need to explain return values in depth. It covers the essential aspects of a modify operation: what it does, partial-update semantics, a specific parameter behavior, and a recommended pre-call verification. Missing details like permission requirements are not critical given the output schema and sibling context, but the description could be more complete about acceptable values for fields like taskrole.

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 description compensates for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions by stating that only supplied fields are changed, which applies to all optional parameters. It explicitly clarifies the enable parameter's semantics. However, it does not provide additional detail for password, taskrole, or description parameters beyond what the schema's types already imply (e.g., expected formats or constraints).

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 modifies an existing HMC user account, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like hmc_create_user and hmc_delete_user by focusing on modification of existing users.

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?

It provides explicit guidance to use hmc_users(name=...) to confirm the current state before calling, which is a recommended prerequisite. It also implies partial-update usage ('Only the fields you supply are changed'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or compare to alternatives beyond this.

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