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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: partial-update semantics (only sent fields change) and the constraint that an empty value is not sent, so a field cannot be cleared here. It does not mention permission requirements for role/manager changes, which is the remaining gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with 'WRITE:' and the verb, with the partial-update caveat packed into a parenthetical. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 31-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers update semantics but leaves out permission requirements, the meaning of the custom fields, and any indication of the response. Adequate but with clear gaps given the tool's complexity.

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 13% across 31 parameters, so most fields (custom1 through custom15, address fields, first_name, etc.) have no meaning documented anywhere. The description compensates by explaining partial-update behavior, which is the single most important parameter semantic here, but it adds nothing about the custom fields or the role/manager implications. A 3 reflects that partial compensation.

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 gives a specific verb ('change profile fields') and resource ('an existing user'), which cleanly separates it from axislms_create_user and axislms_get_user. It also names the underlying endpoint, PUT /users/{user_id}/. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling tools it must be distinguished from, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 'WRITE:' prefix and the note that it edits personal data and can change role or manager imply a mutation context, but there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this tool instead of axislms_create_user or axislms_get_user, and no stated prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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