update_auth_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively adds context beyond the input schema by warning about 'Password handling is insecure' and specifying requirements like 'Requires service_role key and direct DB connection', which are crucial for safe and correct usage. However, it doesn't detail potential side effects or response behavior, preventing a perfect score.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose and critical warnings in just two sentences. Every sentence earns its place by conveying essential information without waste, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the complexity of a user update tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers key behavioral aspects like security warnings and prerequisites, but lacks details on return values, error handling, or full mutation implications, which would be beneficial for comprehensive understanding.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining interactions between fields or usage nuances. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the verb 'Updates' and resource 'fields for a user in auth.users', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_auth_user' or 'delete_auth_user' beyond the update action, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 description provides some context with 'Requires service_role key and direct DB connection', implying prerequisites for usage. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_auth_user' or 'delete_auth_user', leaving usage scenarios somewhat implied rather than clearly defined.

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