users_update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing about update semantics (patch vs replace), whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, or permission requirements, which matters for a 13-field mutation.

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?

Two short sentences with the identity hint front-loaded and zero padding. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than perfectly sized for a 13-param tool.

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 13-parameter mutation with 46% schema coverage and no output schema, the description leaves the field semantics and update behavior largely unexplained. It is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it confidently across all parameters.

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 low (46%), so the description carries more burden, yet it only clarifies that id or username can serve as the identifier (2 of 13 params). The remaining 11 updatable fields, including the tag/email/status/limits fields, are undocumented in both schema and description.

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 ('Update a user'), which is clear on its own. It does not differentiate from close siblings like users_bulk_update or the many targeted users_* mutators (enable/disable/reset_traffic), though the singular 'a user' weakly implies single-target scope.

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 only guidance offered is the identity mechanism ('Identify by id OR username'). There is no when-to-use context, no mention of when to prefer users_bulk_update, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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