update_admin_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the HTTP method and endpoint, but it does not explain side effects, required permissions, whether the update is partial or full, or what the response contains. For a mutating operation, this is insufficient transparency.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: one states the purpose, one handles routing parameters, and one specifies the body format. No redundant filler or rephrasing of the tool name.

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 gives essential high-level instructions and an output schema exists, but it omits details like the exact path parameter name, required body fields, and query parameter semantics. An agent could call the endpoint correctly in many cases, but ambiguity remains around constructing a valid JSON:API payload.

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% and the parameters are generic object types. The description compensates meaningfully by assigning semantic roles: path_params holds route IDs, query holds filtering/pagination/sorting/include values, and body carries the JSON:API payload. It does not enumerate exact fields, but it converts opaque object slots into actionable guidance.

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 identifies the operation: updating an administrator user via `PATCH /users/{userId}`. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like `create_admin_user`, `get_admin_user`, and `delete_admin_user`, all of which are listed alongside it.

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 clear context by explaining where each kind of input should be placed: route IDs in path_params, filtering/pagination/sorting/include in query, and JSON:API payload in body. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to proceed correctly.

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