cipp_edit_user

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

Disclosures high-impact nature, reversibility, and potential role/license changes, which goes beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, readOnlyHint). However, it does not explicitly confirm idempotency, which is hinted in annotations but not in description.

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?

Two dense sentences front-loaded with a warning symbol and essential information. No redundant words; every part serves a purpose.

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 no output schema, it covers purpose, impact, reversibility, and user confirmation. Missing details on return value or error handling, but these are less critical given the tool's nature.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by linking parameters to real-world effects (e.g., usageLocation affects license eligibility), compensating for the absence of role-related parameters in the schema.

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?

Explicitly states 'Edits an existing user's properties' with specific examples (directory attributes, usage location, roles/licenses). Clearly distinguishes from siblings like cipp_create_user or cipp_disable_user by focusing on modification rather than creation or removal.

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?

Includes 'Confirm with the user before invoking' as a usage caution, signaling high impact and need for consent. Does not explicitly mention when to avoid using or list alternative tools, but the warning effectively guides appropriate invocation.

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