redmine_user_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update user', implying mutation, but gives no details about side effects, permissions, idempotency, partial vs. full replacement, or error handling. This is a critical gap for a mutating operation.

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 brief and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It omits essential parameter and behavior information, making the short length a deficiency, not a strength.

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 tool with a nested 'user' object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the request body shape, valid user fields, or any constraints, leaving agents unable to construct a correct invocation without external knowledge.

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 does not compensate. Neither 'id' nor 'user' is explained; the nested 'user' object uses additionalProperties: {} with no field list, so an agent cannot determine required or valid fields. The description adds no parameter meaning.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'user', and adds the HTTP method and endpoint (PUT /users/:id.json) for technical specificity. It avoids a tautology by including the endpoint, but does not differentiate from sibling tools beyond the verb, so it misses the top score.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like redmine_user_create, redmine_user_delete, or redmine_user_get. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual hints are provided; the agent must infer the intended use case solely from the 'update' verb.

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