update_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'partial update' but does not clarify whether omitted fields are left unchanged or set to null, nor does it discuss auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The schema allows null values but no behavioral explanation.

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?

Single sentence is concise and to the point. However, it may be too brief given the complexity (7 parameters, nested objects). Additional structured information could be added without losing conciseness.

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 7 parameters (1 required, nested objects), no output schema, and sibling tools for CRUD, the description is insufficient. It does not explain response behavior, error handling, or how partial update works with null values. A more complete description would include format or preconditions.

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 only 29% (2 of 7 parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond the schema. It only implies the 'userId' parameter is for identification. No extra semantics for other parameters like 'customData' or 'name'.

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?

Description clearly states the action (update), resource (Logto user), and method (by ID, partial update). It differentiates from other user tools (create, delete, list, get) by specifying it's an update. However, it could be more specific about what 'partial update' means in terms of field handling.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that this should be used only for existing users or distinguish from create_user. The description implicitly suggests use for modifying existing users, but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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