ncloud_serverless_update_user

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint and destructiveHint. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the HTTP method (PATCH), merge-patch semantics (partial update), the 202 Operation response, and the immutability of the user name. These details go beyond annotations and inform the agent of API behavior and constraints.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and includes essential HTTP details and a key constraint. There is no wasted wording; every phrase carries utility.

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 simple update operation with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, HTTP method/status, merge-patch behavior, and an important immutability restriction. It lacks explicit mention of asynchrony (implied by '202 Operation') or prerequisites, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 50% (password and clusterName have descriptions; userName and permission do not). The description clarifies that password and permission are the modifiable fields and userName is immutable, adding some value. However, it does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions of userName and permission, leaving their semantics largely to their names.

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 'Change a DB user's password and/or permission', a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes this update operation from create/delete siblings. It also explicitly notes the name cannot be changed, which disambiguates what is modifiable.

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 makes the action clear ('change... password and/or permission') and the immutability of the name clarifies a limitation. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools (e.g., create_user, delete_user) or when not to use it, though the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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