whatsms_admin_update_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 only states the update action, without revealing whether the user must exist, whether it's a partial or full update, what security context is needed, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It gets straight to the point, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 an admin CRUD operation with no annotations, output schema, or parameter definitions, this minimal description is insufficient. It does not explain the update semantics, required permissions, or response behavior, leaving the agent under-informed about how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 zero defined parameters but additionalProperties allows arbitrary fields. The description adds no information about expected fields, identifiers, or update format. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate, though the open schema could benefit from clarification.

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 the target resource ('an existing user in the WhatSMS system'), providing a specific verb+resource pair. It distinguishes itself from sibling create/delete user tools by specifying 'existing' user.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus create or delete user tools. The name and description imply it is for modifying an existing user, but no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned.

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