users_update_user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the name implies—it does not explain mutation semantics, permission requirements, or side effects. No contradiction exists, but no additional transparency is provided.

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 words is technically concise but it is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. The description does not front-load any useful information and fails to earn its place by conveying any operational value.

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 tool has 16 parameters, nested objects (permissions, twilioPhone), and a large enum list for scopes, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot reliably construct a correct request without consulting the schema in full, and even then, ambiguity around behaviors like scopes replacement semantics (partially covered in schema) remains. No output schema exists, so the description also fails to hint at return values.

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 has only 44% parameter description coverage, leaving many parameters (e.g., role, type, phone, firstName, lastName) undocumented. The description 'Update User' provides zero insight into parameter meanings or usage, and does not compensate for the schema gaps. The agent is left to infer semantics from parameter names alone.

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 'Update User' clearly identifies the action (update) and the resource (user), which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like users_create_user or users_delete_user, and lacks any additional context about what 'update' entails.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., users_create_user, users_delete_user). The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would help an agent decide to invoke this tool.

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