seerr_update_user

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, so the 'WRITE: this modifies your Seerr instance' note is redundant. The description does not disclose what specific user attributes are updatable, whether changes are reversible, or any permission requirements. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and key identifier. It contains no filler words, and the 'WRITE' warning is brief and unobtrusive. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which covers return values), the description fails to document the body parameter, which is central to the update operation. It also does not clarify how this tool differs from similar user mutations like batch_update_users. The description is inadequate for an API with nested objects and low schema coverage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'user ID' for the user_id parameter, but the body parameter (an object with additionalProperties: true) is completely unspecified. There is no explanation of what fields or structure are expected in the body, which is essential for an update operation.

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 a user by user ID' clearly states the action (update), target (user), and key parameter (user ID). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_user, delete_user, and batch_update_users by its specific singular update semantics.

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 alternatives such as seerr_batch_update_users or seerr_create_user. There are no explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or context about typical use cases. The usage is only implied by the tool name.

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