admin_edit_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It notes that admin privileges are required and implies mutation ('edit'), but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, auth details beyond admin, or what happens on failure. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the key requirement. Every word is necessary, with no superfluous information.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description omits what the tool returns (e.g., the updated user object) and any potential side effects. However, the simple nature of editing user fields and the full schema coverage lower the bar; it is adequate but could be more complete.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter has a clear description (e.g., username with pattern, email with format, active/admin boolean). The description adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline.

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 action ('Edit') and resource ('existing user'), and distinguishes it from siblings like `admin_create_user` and `admin_delete_user`. The verb-resource pairing is specific and 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?

The description mentions the prerequisite of admin privileges but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as `admin_create_user` or non-admin editing tools. There is no explicit context on exclusions or preferred scenarios.

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