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

Goes beyond destructiveHint=true by disclosing PATCH semantics ('only the fields you pass are sent') and the destructive nature of the tags parameter (REPLACES the tag list). It does not cover auth/permission requirements or side effects of changing email/username, so not a full 5.

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?

Front-loaded WRITE prefix, then scope, then the critical caveat, then the alternative. Three compact sentences with no filler.

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 no output schema, the key facts an agent needs (partial-update behavior, tag replacement risk, sibling alternative) are present. Missing only permission/authorization notes and the effect of identifier (email/id) changes.

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 50%, and the description compensates by enumerating the mutable fields and clarifying the tags parameter's replace-not-append semantics, which the schema label only partly conveys. It still omits format hints for email/username beyond what the schema implies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('update a user') plus the exact mutable fields, and prefixes with WRITE. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling it resembles (learnworlds_update_user_tags) by name.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: for adding/removing individual tags use learnworlds_update_user_tags instead. It also tells the agent that only passed fields are sent, giving clear context for when to use this tool versus the tags helper.

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