users_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers nothing beyond the basic verb 'Update'. It doesn't indicate whether this operation requires specific authentication, what permissions are needed, whether changes are reversible, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is critically insufficient.

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?

While 'Update user' is technically concise, it represents under-specification rather than effective brevity. The two words fail to convey necessary information about the tool's purpose and usage. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the minimal description doesn't earn its place by providing adequate guidance.

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?

Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a completely inadequate description, the contextual completeness is severely lacking. The description fails to provide the minimum information needed for an agent to understand what the tool does, when to use it, or what behavioral characteristics to expect. It's completely inadequate for a tool that presumably modifies user data.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage (empty schema), so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate since the schema fully covers the parameter situation (nonexistent), and the description doesn't create confusion about parameters.

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 'Update user' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'users_update'. It provides no additional specificity about what aspects of a user can be updated (e.g., profile, permissions, status) or the scope of the operation. While it clearly indicates a mutation operation, it lacks the detail needed to distinguish it meaningfully from other update operations in the sibling tool list.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, required permissions, or differentiation from other user-related tools like 'users_create', 'users_get', or 'users_list' that appear in the sibling list. An agent would have no contextual clues about appropriate usage scenarios.

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