update_user

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Update an existing user' and lists parameters, but does not mention mutation effects, atomicity, partial vs full replacement, or side effects beyond the 'append' hint. Insufficient 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 concise with a front-loaded purpose sentence and a compact parameter list. However, the flat list could be better structured (e.g., grouping or defaults), earning a 4 rather than a 5.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers parameter meanings adequately but lacks behavioral context (e.g., side effects, error conditions). It is minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It adds format constraints (e.g., 'userid: User ID (format: user@realm)'), special values for 'expire', and behavior for 'append'. Some descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'Email address'), but overall adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states 'Update an existing user', clearly indicating the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_user' or 'delete_user' beyond the verb, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., user must exist), or context. Among many sibling update tools, this omission reduces usability.

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