user_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states 'Update' but does not disclose whether updates are partial/merge, whether the user_id must exist, or immediate effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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 sentence that is concise and wastes no words. However, it could be more structured to include common fields or behavioral notes without becoming verbose.

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 complexity of a mutation tool with an open 'updates' object and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on permissions, partial updates, and required field formats, leaving critical gaps for an agent to safely use the tool.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage. The description adds value by listing example fields (password, email, is_active), but does not explain the structure of the 'updates' object (e.g., key-value pairs) or any constraints, leaving the agent partially informed.

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 action 'Update' and the resource 'user', with example fields (password, email, is_active), distinguishing it from sibling tools like user_create, user_delete, and user_get.

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 description implies use for modifying existing users but provides no guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for creating users) or prerequisites like admin permissions or ensuring the user exists.

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