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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's job is to add context — e.g. whether this is a partial patch or full replace, whether role changes require admin rights, or whether omitted fields are preserved. It adds none of this; "Update user properties" conveys nothing beyond the annotations.

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?

It is short, but not front-loaded with information — the two clauses are near-duplicates of each other and of the title. Brevity here comes from under-specification rather than economy.

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 destructive mutation with four parameters, the description says nothing about what is overwritten, permission requirements, or whether name/role are individually optional. The output schema covers return values, but the behavioral picture an agent needs before invoking a destructive write is missing.

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 100%, so id, name, role, and workspace_id are already documented, including the enum values and the workspace fallback behavior. The description contributes no additional parameter semantics, which puts it at the baseline 3.

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 restates the name twice ("Update a User - Update user properties") without identifying which properties are mutable or what the operation means. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like update_lead, update_workspace, or update_sender beyond the resource noun.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_user, add_user, or update_workspace, and no stated preconditions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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