updateUserUpdate specific user by id - Update attributes of a user. You may only specify the attributes you want to change. If an attribute is not set, it will retain its original value.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| userId | Yes | ||
| x-trace-id | No | ||
| x-request-id | Yes | ||
| updateUserBody | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), and the description adds the key PATCH-like behavior that unspecified fields are retained rather than reset. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but the annotation plus partial-update note provide useful transparency.
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 only two sentences and front-loads the purpose. The opening phrase repeats the title, creating minor redundancy, but the partial-update explanation is valuable and concise.
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?
With a nested updateUserBody, three required parameters, destructive behavior, and no output schema, the description is underspecified. It does not explain required headers, how to identify the user, supported attribute categories, or expected results, leaving gaps for an agent trying to invoke 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?
The description does not elaborate on top-level parameters such as userId, x-request-id, x-trace-id, or updateUserBody. With 0% schema description coverage for these parameters, the description should compensate, but it only generically refers to 'attributes of a user' and gives no details about required headers or body construction.
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 'Update specific user by id' and 'Update attributes of a user', identifying the verb, resource, and scope. This distinguishes it from siblings like createUser, deleteUser, retrieveUser, and other update* variants.
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?
It explains partial-update semantics: only specified attributes change and unspecified ones retain their original values. This clearly indicates when the tool should be used, though it does not explicitly contrast it with create/delete/retrieve user tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools have clearly distinct CRUD roles per resource, but there are several confusing overlaps: start/stop/restart/shutdown/rescue are similar lifecycle actions, and there are duplicate audit tools like retrieveImageAuditsList and retrieveImageAuditsList1 (one even mislabeled as DNS Zones audit). Additionally, retrieveTagAuditsList appears to duplicate retrieveAssignmentsAuditsList, and updateDnsZoneRecord incorrectly says 'Create resource record'. These overlaps and mislabeled descriptions make it hard to pick the right tool.
The naming is a mix of camelCase verb_noun patterns, but inconsistent. Some tools use 'retrieveXList' while others use 'listX', some use 'Cancel' with a capital letter, and 'tool_search' uses snake_case. Numeric suffixes like 'retrieveImageAuditsList1' and verbs like 'patchInstance' instead of 'updateInstance' further break consistency.
With 124 tools, this is an extremely large tool surface for an MCP server. Even for a broad cloud provider API, this overwhelms an agent's context and selection capabilities. The number far exceeds reasonable scoping and creates unnecessary selection overhead.
The tool set covers a wide range of resources thoroughly: instances, snapshots, images, private networks, object storage, DNS, domains, tags, roles, users, secrets, and audits. Most resources have create/retrieve/update/delete lifecycle operations, and there are extensive audit history tools. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit instance deletion besides cancel, no separate firewall management beyond upgradeInstance), but overall the surface is quite complete for its domain.