ghl_update_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it updates an existing team member, which implies mutation, and mentions partial-update semantics. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., email/password changes), required permissions, error behavior if the user doesn't exist, or whether nested permissions are merged or replaced. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of two short sentences. Every word contributes meaning: 'Update an existing team member' states purpose, and 'Only provide fields you want to change' provides critical usage guidance. No filler or repetition.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters including a nested permissions object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief to be complete. It does not address return values, error cases, or the crucial behavior of nested object updates (whether providing permissions merges or replaces existing permissions). This could lead to incorrect usage despite the schema and partial-update note.

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 only 29%, so the description needs to compensate. The 'Only provide fields you want to change' guidance adds general parameter semantics by clarifying that all fields except userId are optional and should be supplied only when changing. However, it doesn't explain the nested permissions object (merge vs. replace) or provide per-field details beyond what the schema already gives. The instruction adds value but does not fully compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Update an existing team member.' The verb 'update' and resource 'existing team member' are specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ghl_create_user, ghl_delete_user, and ghl_get_user.

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 instruction 'Only provide fields you want to change' provides clear usage context for partial updates, implying that omitted fields remain unchanged. This is strong guidance for the primary use case. However, it does not explicitly exclude use for creating users or mention alternatives, though the tool name and 'existing' make that implicit.

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