user_email_put

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only lists route, tag, and spec. It does not disclose that without confirm:true the call returns a request preview rather than performing the write, nor any auth/permission or side-effect information. The only behavioral hint lives in the schema, not the description.

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 little more than a raw OpenAPI snippet: route, a Russian one-liner, a tag, and a spec reference. It is short but not informative; 'Тег: Пользователи / Спека: user' are metadata that consume space without helping an agent decide or invoke.

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 endpoint with a nested body object, an admin-impersonation parameter, and a confirmation-preview mode, the description is far too thin. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the write, the confirm workflow, and impersonation, none of which it does.

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 100%, so parameter meaning is already documented in the schema (including the confirm preview semantics). The description adds nothing about body.email, confirm, or user_id. Baseline 3 applies 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 states the HTTP method and route (PUT /user/email) and gives a one-line purpose in Russian ('Set user's email'). This is a clear verb+resource, but it does not differentiate from siblings user_email_post, user_email_get, or user_email_delete beyond the HTTP verb.

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 on when to use this tool versus user_email_post, user_email_verify_post, or user_email_delete. The confirm parameter implies a preview/commit workflow, but the description never explains when a caller should prefer this over alternatives.

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