db_update_user_access_control

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states what the tool does and what it returns. It does not explain whether omitted ACL fields preserve existing settings or reset them, what permissions are required, or whether the operation overwrites the user's current ACL in whole or in part.

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 clearly structured with a one-line purpose, an Args section, and a Returns section. It has no filler, and the examples are useful, though the Args list partially duplicates schema property names.

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?

For a mutation tool with six parameters and no annotations, the description provides the minimum needed to attempt a call: scope, required identity fields, and examples. But it omits important update semantics around omitted parameters and existing ACL state, which could lead an agent to make destructive or unintended changes.

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 enumerates all six parameters and gives concrete examples for acl_categories, acl_channels, and acl_keys, and clarifies that database_id can be a label or ID. However, it does not explain syntax expectations for acl_commands or the meaning of null/default values.

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?

States a specific action ('update access control') on a specific resource (database user) and narrows scope to Valkey/Redis only. It clearly distinguishes from generic user updates by focusing on ACL-specific control.

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 'Valkey/Redis only' qualifier and ACL-specific parameters imply the intended context, but the description does not explicitly say when to prefer this over sibling tools like db_update_user or db_create_user. There is no direct when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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