update_metabase_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies mutation, it doesn't specify whether this requires admin privileges, if changes are reversible, what validation occurs (e.g., email format), or potential side effects (e.g., password changes triggering notifications). The description lacks these critical behavioral details.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence followed by organized 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more detailed given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool with 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and detailed parameter constraints that would make it fully complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by listing all 8 parameters with brief explanations of what each represents. It clarifies that 'user_id' identifies the target user and provides context for fields like 'login_attributes' and 'group_ids'. However, it doesn't explain format expectations (e.g., password complexity) or constraints (e.g., unique email).

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') and resource ('an existing user in Metabase'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'create_metabase_user' or other update tools, which would require a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_metabase_user' or 'delete_metabase_user'. It also doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing admin permissions) or constraints (e.g., what happens if email is already in use).

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