pve_update_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update user configuration' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no mention of required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens when fields are omitted. For a mutation tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 concise at just three words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and target. There's zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. For a tool with comprehensive schema documentation, this brevity is appropriate.

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 this is a mutation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'user configuration' encompasses, what happens on success/failure, or provide any context about the Proxmox VE environment. The agent must rely entirely on the schema for understanding, which is inadequate for safe tool invocation.

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%, with all 8 parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (it doesn't mention any specific parameters like userid, email, etc.). According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.

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 'Update user configuration' clearly states the action (update) and target (user configuration), which is better than a tautology. However, it's quite generic and doesn't specify what aspects of user configuration can be updated or distinguish this from other user-related tools like pve_create_user or pve_delete_user. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing an existing user), when not to use it, or how it differs from sibling tools like pve_create_user. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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