Update authenticated user

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description states it requires a write PAT, which adds meaningful behavioral context about authentication requirements. However, it doesn't disclose the full behavior of a write operation on the user (e.g., whether it's reversible, what happens to existing name, whether related sessions are affected). With annotations present, this adds modest value.

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 a single, efficient sentence that packs the essential information: what's updated (display name), who it applies to (authenticated user), and the auth requirement. No wasted words.

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 simple single-field update operation with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose adequately. However, the idempotency_key parameter is entirely undocumented, and there's no guidance on the write PAT requirement beyond a passing mention. Given the low operation complexity, this is borderline adequate but could clarify the idempotency key's role and behavior on repeated calls.

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 coverage is 50% with 2 parameters. The 'name' parameter has a description in the schema ('Display name chosen for your visibility account'). The description identifies 'display name' as the updated field, which aligns. However, the idempotency_key parameter has no description in either the schema or the tool description, leaving it unexplained. The description adds some alignment but doesn't compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 verb (update) and resource (authenticated user's display name), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from get_me (read) and other update operations, though it doesn't explicitly comment on alternatives.

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 mentions requiring a write PAT, which implies the usage context (write operations need elevated token). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives, nor when not to use it. The auth requirement is helpful context but there's no exclusion guidance.

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