update_user_geographic_access_scope

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes well beyond them by disclosing atomic replacement, idempotency for identical requests, hierarchy-root constraints, and the UsersManager permission requirement. This adds substantial behavioral context that annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four concise sentences, each contributing a distinct piece of information: purpose/behavior, atomicity, hierarchy and tenant preconditions, and permission requirement. There is no filler, and the most important action is front-loaded.

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 description covers prerequisites, idempotency, and permissions well, but there is no output schema and the description does not mention return values or how the new geographic scope should be expressed in the request. Since the schema itself also does not document a scope/country parameter, this is a meaningful gap for an agent trying to call the tool correctly.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds meaning for targetCustomerId (the target root or child customer) and userId (the user belonging to that customer), but it does not clarify X-Tenant-Id or how the actual replacement scope is supplied in the request. The compensation is partial and leaves key request data unexplained.

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 a specific operation: atomically replacing the geographic scope assigned to a user. The resource is identifiable ('geographic scope assigned to a user who belongs to the target customer'), and the verb 'replaces' distinguishes it from get/delete siblings. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools like update_customer_geographic_access_scope or get_user_geographic_access_scope, so differentiation relies on wording rather than explicit contrast.

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 gives clear invocation context: the authenticated tenant must be the hierarchy root and the target must be the root or a child customer. It also names the required permission, UsersManager. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or point to alternative tools for viewing or deleting scope, but the preconditions and operation context are strong enough for an agent to understand when this tool applies.

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