update_user

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

The description includes '[DESTRUCTIVE]' to signal a write operation, and states that only provided fields are changed, implying a partial update. Since no annotations are available, this adds valuable behavioral context. It does not cover error scenarios or authentication, but is adequate.

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 two sentences and to the point, with no unnecessary information. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the destructive hint.

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 tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description explains what fields can be updated but does not mention the return value or potential error conditions. It is adequate but could be more complete for a mutation 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?

All parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds meaning by clarifying the update semantics (only provided fields changed) and reiterating the ID is numeric and not the extension, which complements the schema.

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 it updates a 3CX user by numeric ID and lists the updatable fields (name, email, mobile, enable/disable). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_user and delete_user, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly instructs to get the ID from get_user or list_users first, which is useful context. However, it does not provide explicit 'when not to use' or compare to other tools beyond the initial note.

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