user_put

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

No annotations are given, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It says 'PUT /user' and 'registration' but does not disclose the non-GET confirm requirement (the schema notes this, but it belongs as behavioral context), nor authorisation implications of user_id. Only the bare operation type is communicated.

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 not verbose but is unstructured and front-loads an HTTP route string rather than a clear statement of intent. It wastes space on metadata (tag, spec) that an agent cannot use for tool selection.

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 registration mutation with nested body and a confirm preview mechanism, the description does not explain the registration workflow, confirm semantics, or what happens on success/failure. No output schema exists, so the description should carry more, but it provides almost nothing beyond the raw endpoint.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter (login, password, confirm, user_id). The description adds no extra parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is correct when schema covers everything.

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 is essentially a raw API route dump: 'PUT /user', then 'Регистрация пользователя' (user registration), plus tag and spec metadata. A verb exists (registration) but it doesn't differentiate from siblings like user_post, user_auth_post, or admin_user_put. Tautological, minimal useful purpose statement.

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 indication of when to use this vs. the many other user-related PUT/POST tools. No alternatives named, no context on prerequisites. The agent is left to infer everything.

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