Update multiple Remnawave VPN users at once by User IDs, applying fields such as email, status, expiration, traffic limits, tag, and squad assignments.
Bulk update users by User IDs
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | ||
| userIds | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only tell the agent this is a write that is not flagged destructive. The description adds nothing about partial-failure semantics for a 500-ID batch, whether unspecified fields are preserved, permission requirements, or what the response contains. For a bulk mutation with zero annotation depth, this is a substantial gap.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted. The brevity is appropriate in form but is achieved by omission rather than economy.
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 500-item batch mutation with a nested, multi-field update object and no output schema needs more than six words. Missing batch limits, partial-success behavior, and field-update semantics make this inadequate for correct invocation.
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%, so the description must compensate and does not. 'By User IDs' names the userIds array but nothing explains the 'fields' object contract — that it is a partial update, which fields are accepted, or how the nested values interact with the enum-typed status/trafficLimitStrategy.
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?
Clear verb+resource ('bulk update users') with a scope qualifier ('by User IDs') that implicitly separates it from users_bulk_all_update. However, it never distinguishes itself from the single-user users_update or the specialized siblings users_bulk_update_squads / users_bulk_reset_traffic, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.
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, no mention of prerequisites or alternatives despite ~10 sibling bulk user tools. The agent must guess whether this covers squad assignment or traffic resets (which have dedicated tools) or whether those fields belong here via the generic 'fields' object.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.