update_user

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Replace (full update)' usefully signals PUT-style replacement semantics, but the description omits permission requirements, side effects on omitted fields, and reversibility for a destructive mutation.

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 operation statement is front-loaded and clear, but the bulk of the text is a bloated, redundant keyword list ('update, replace, edit, modify, save, write, put') that adds no selection value and buries the one meaningful phrase.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the definition is thin. It never addresses auth/permissions, response behavior, or partial-vs-full field handling, leaving the agent under-informed for a write operation.

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 0%, so neither the schema nor the description explains the two parameters. The description says nothing about item_id being the user UUID or about which UserBase body fields matter, leaving a complex nested body entirely undocumented.

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+resource pair ('Update User') and clarifies the semantics with 'Replace (full update) user,' which distinguishes it from a partial update. It does not, however, differentiate itself from nearby siblings like update_password or update_user_image.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives. The keyword list restates the operation many ways but never says under what conditions an agent should choose this tool over set_member_permissions or update_password.

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