user_post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not state that this is a write operation, what auth/role is needed, or what happens to unspecified fields. The only behavioral hint is the implicit POST-is-a-mutation convention. Notably, the useful "confirm:true required in rw mode or you get a preview" behavior 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?

It is very short with no wasted sentences, and the method/path is front-loaded, so it is not bloated. However, it is under-specified rather than concise: the tag and spec lines contribute essentially nothing to an agent's decision.

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 13-field request body, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is far too thin. It omits requiredness, permission requirements, return behavior, and the preview/confirm workflow, leaving the agent to reverse-engineer intent from the schema alone.

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 100% and every parameter (including the nested body fields and the confirm flag) is documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or requiredness information beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

"POST /user" plus "Изменить пользователя" (modify user) gives a verb and a resource, so the purpose is discernible, but it is generic boilerplate. It does nothing to distinguish this from near-identical siblings such as user_put, admin_user_post, or admin_user_put, so an agent cannot tell which mutation endpoint is intended without opening each schema.

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 mention of alternatives despite dozens of overlapping user-mutation siblings. The only implied context is the HTTP verb itself; nothing tells the agent when this tool is the right choice over user_put or admin_user_post.

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