Contract Testing: Admin Update User

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that—no mention of required permissions, side effects, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence plus a redundant parameter list (already present in the schema). While not overly long, it could be more concise by omitting the parameter list and relying on the schema. Every sentence earns its place but the repetition adds noise.

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 simple update tool with 6 scalar parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate: it states the purpose and lists fields. However, it lacks details on partial vs full updates, return value, common error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., admin role). Annotations fill some gaps but not all.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description's parameter list mirrors the schema exactly, adding no new semantic meaning or usage hints. Thus, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'Update' and the resource 'user's profile or active status', specifying the admin scope. It lists the exact parameters (userId, active, email, firstName, lastName, name), making the tool's function unambiguous. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_user or delete_user.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., contract-testing_admin_set_user_roles or contract-testing_admin_patch_team_users). It does not mention contexts where this tool should be avoided or prioritize other tools, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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