Contract Testing: Admin Update User

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

Annotations already communicate that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent (idempotentHint=true), and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description's 'Update' phrasing is consistent with these annotations and adds the scope of what can be changed, but it adds no deeper behavioral context such as auth requirements, response behavior, or side effects. No contradiction exists.

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 opening sentence is concise and front-loaded, clearly stating the operation. However, the entire 'Parameters' section redundantly repeats schema descriptions, lengthening the description without adding value. It is not bloated but is not as tight as it could be.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and parameters but omits expected return/response behavior and does not clarify whether the update is partial or full. Annotations cover safety traits, but the description alone leaves meaningful gaps an agent might need to infer.

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 input schema already documents every parameter. The parameter list in the description exactly duplicates the schema descriptions without adding extra meaning, such as explaining partial-update behavior, validations, or interactions between fields. This keeps it at the baseline score.

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 begins with 'Update a user's profile or active status (admin),' which clearly identifies the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes this from sibling admin tools like admin_create_user, admin_delete_user, and admin_set_user_roles without needing to open the schema.

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 'Toolset: Admin' label and the action language imply when this should be used, but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It does not name sibling tools as exclusions, leaving the usage context to inference.

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