Update an existing Zendesk user's profile by changing name, email, role, tags, notes, phone, or organization ID.
Update an existing user
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | User ID to update | |
| name | No | Updated user's name | |
| role | No | Updated user's role | |
| tags | No | Updated tags for the user | |
| No | Updated email address | ||
| notes | No | Updated notes about the user | |
| phone | No | Updated phone number | |
| organization_id | No | Updated organization ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already state. Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description does not clarify whether the update is partial or full, what happens on nonexistent IDs, or whether fields not provided are reset. Given the destructive nature, this is a notable 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?
The description is a single short phrase, which is concise but almost under-specified. It front-loads the verb and resource, but it lacks any additional context or structure. It is not verbose, but it does not earn its place by adding value beyond the name.
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 8 parameters, a required id, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the update semantics (e.g., partial vs. full), error behavior, or idempotency implications. The schema covers parameters, but the tool's behavior remains ambiguous, making it difficult for an agent to predict outcomes without additional 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 100%, so each parameter has a clear description in the input schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific information, which is acceptable since the schema carries that burden. Baseline 3 is appropriate here because the description does not need to repeat what the schema already documents.
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 clear verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing user'), which distinguishes it from create/delete/list operations at a basic level. However, it does not mention any specific fields or scope, relying entirely on the schema for that. It is not a tautology, but it is minimal.
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 create_user or delete_user. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., user must exist) or when to prefer this over other user operations. With siblings like get_user, create_user, and delete_user, an agent would need to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.