Update a user by ID, changing only the attributes you specify while leaving all other values unchanged.
Update specific user by id [PATCH /v1/users/{userId}] Update attributes of a user. You may only specify the attributes you want to change. If an attribute is not set, it will retain its original value.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | JSON request body | |
| userId | Yes | The identifier of the user. | |
| x-trace-id | No | Identifier to trace group of requests. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorld=true, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: this is a merge/partial update, not a full replace, so omitted fields survive. That is exactly the kind of mutation semantics annotations cannot express. It stops short of stating side effects (e.g. disabling a user locks them out) or permission requirements, so not a 5.
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?
Front-loaded with the verb, resource and endpoint, followed by two short sentences that each carry a rule. The opening 'Update specific user by id' lightly duplicates the title, which is the only waste.
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 3-parameter partial-update tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the one thing the schema cannot: that the body is merged rather than replaced. Missing only permission prerequisites and the shape of the response, which are secondary here.
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 100% and the nested body already documents every attribute (totp, roles, locale, enabled, names, secondaryEmail, sendInvoiceEmail) in detail. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the general 'only set what you change' rule, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource plus the HTTP method and path (PATCH /v1/users/{userId}), which pins down exactly which entity is mutated. It does not contrast with nearby siblings such as update_role or request_email_change, so an agent must infer the boundary, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
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 gives a meaningful usage rule — only send the attributes you want changed, unset attributes are preserved — which tells the agent how to call it. It says nothing about when to prefer this over siblings (reset_password, request_email_change, generate_sso_token) for specific user modifications, so routing guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.