treeflow_update_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It identifies what is updated (role or active status) but does not state whether the update is partial or full, what happens if the user_id is missing or invalid, whether permissions are required, or what the response looks like.

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?

The description is a single focused sentence, front-loaded with the resource and the exact fields being updated. There is no wasted wording or unnecessary detail.

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 an unannotated mutation tool with no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits behavioral expectations such as partial update semantics, error conditions, and response information, and provides no usage guidance beyond the simple action statement.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds a little meaning by explicitly mapping the tool to 'rol' and 'estado activo', but it does not provide additional semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Actualiza el rol o estado activo de un usuario existente' (updates the role or active status of an existing user). It clearly names the target resource and the operation, and is distinguishable from siblings like treeflow_create_user and treeflow_list_users, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 phrase 'usuario existente' gives implied usage context: use this for existing users, not for creating or listing users. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of alternatives such as treeflow_create_user.

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