cipp_edit_user

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description adds that the operation is reversible by editing again, may grant/revoke roles or license eligibility, and requires user confirmation. This provides useful behavioral context not captured in structured data.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. It front-loads a warning emoji and 'HIGH-IMPACT', then states the purpose and key behaviors. No wasted words, every sentence earns its place.

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 complexity (8 parameters, high-impact, destructive) and no output schema, the description covers major behavioral aspects but lacks details on return values or immediate effects. It does not specify how to revert changes or what happens to existing settings not mentioned. An output schema would help, but the description provides adequate context for an AI agent to use the tool cautiously.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters. The tool description does not add specific parameter details beyond what the schema provides, but it does give context that the tool can modify roles and licenses, which aligns with parameters like licenses and removeLicenses. Baseline 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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 'Edits an existing user's properties' with specific examples like directory attributes, usage location, and license/role modifications. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cipp_create_user or cipp_disable_user by focusing on editing 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?

The description warns that it is high-impact and advises confirming with the user before invoking, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cipp_create_user or cipp_disable_user. It does not specify prerequisites or when not to use it.

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