Update User

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying which fields are updatable and the limitation on passwords. Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true (modification) and idempotentHint=true, but the description provides concrete behavioral constraints. It does not address openWorldHint side effects, but the disclosed constraints are useful for an agent.

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 sentences, no redundancy. The first sentence communicates the core purpose and scope, the second adds a critical limitation. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description covers core functionality and a key limitation, but does not explain update semantics (e.g., whether omitting a field leaves it unchanged or sets it to null), possible errors, or side effects. Given the presence of an output schema and 6 parameters, additional context on behavior would improve completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists four optional fields (firstname, lastname, email, tfa_type) but does not explain their semantics or validation. It omits explanation for user_id and request_id. The fields are self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal semantic value beyond names.

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 action (Update), the resource (user's profile fields), and specifies which fields (firstname, lastname, email, tfa_type). It also explicitly excludes password setting, which distinguishes it from potential related tools. The title 'Update User' aligns, and among many sibling update tools, this one is specific to user profile updates.

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 identifies the required identifier (user_id) and notes that passwords cannot be set, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides clear context for updating profile fields, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or mention of alternative tools for password changes.

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