Api users update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that and its 'viewed or edited' phrasing blurs a write-only endpoint into a read operation, which could mislead an agent. No mention of permissions, partial-vs-full semantics, or what happens to omitted fields.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but its brevity comes from vagueness rather than precision, so it is adequately sized yet uninformative.

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?

A mutation tool on a security-relevant user resource, with a free-form body schema and no output schema, needs the description to state which fields are writable, whether it replaces or merges, and what permissions are required. None of that is present.

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 description gives no information about either parameter. The `body` parameter is a free-form object with additionalProperties=true, so without the description naming valid user fields (email, name, groups, roles, etc.) the agent has no way to construct a valid update payload.

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 restates the tool name in generic terms ('API endpoint that allows users to be viewed or edited') and never says what an update actually does or which user fields are mutable. It does not distinguish this update endpoint from ciso_assistant_api_users_partial_update, ciso_assistant_api_users_retrieve, or ciso_assistant_api_users_list, all of which appear as siblings.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternative, users_partial_update, which is the natural choice for partial edits. The agent is left to infer from the name alone that this is a full replace operation.

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