update_user

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'update' without indicating whether it performs a partial or full replacement of attributes, what happens to unmentioned fields, required permissions, or side effects. This is a serious 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 a single short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. For a tool with 10 parameters, it lacks critical context that would justify its brevity. It is minimal but not efficiently informative.

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 (10 parameters), absence of annotations, and lack of an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine expected behavior, required fields beyond username, or what constitutes a successful update. The description fails to provide necessary operational context.

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 each parameter clearly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the generic term 'attributes', which does not map to specific parameters. It meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not exceed it.

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 the action (update) and the resource (existing user) but does not specify which attributes are updatable, relying entirely on the schema. It distinguishes from create/delete but is too generic to guide an agent on scope, making it a minimal but not tautological purpose.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings like create_user or update_settings. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusion criteria, or when this is the appropriate choice, leaving the agent to infer based on the name alone.

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