update_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses two real behavioral traits: a `users:manage` permission requirement and the session-invalidation side effect of a password change or disable. It stops short of saying that this is a full PUT replacement, so unspecified fields may be cleared and teams omitted are dropped — the schema hints at that but the description does not confirm it.

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 session-invalidation warning is front-loaded and useful, but the text is padded with a redundant title line, a raw endpoint line, and a 'Tags: Agents' line that add no decision-relevant information for an agent.

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 10-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers authentication and one side effect reasonably well. It leaves out the replace-vs-merge update semantics, the consequences of omitting roles or teams, and what the tool returns, which are the main risks with this call.

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 all ten parameters, including the create-only and update-only caveats. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond casually mentioning the password field, so it earns only the baseline.

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 verb and resource and pins the endpoint (PUT /api/v1/agents/{id}), which is concrete. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the nearby update_agent_availability sibling that plainly overlaps with the availability_status parameter listed here, so an agent cannot rule out alternatives from the text alone.

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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites beyond the permission name, and no pointer to update_agent_availability or update_status for narrower changes. Usage has to be inferred entirely from the schema.

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