yougile_update_user

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a write operation. The description adds a key constraint: only admin status can be changed, which prevents misuse. No side effects or permissions are disclosed, but the scope is simple and well-defined.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Update a user') and then the scope ('Only supports changing admin status'). Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is complete. The annotations cover safety traits, and the description clarifies the exact change permitted, making it sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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%, with both id and isAdmin fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 tool updates a user and immediately scopes it to 'only supports changing admin status.' This makes the purpose specific and distinguishes it from other update tools for different resources (columns, tasks, etc.) and from invite/delete user tools.

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 phrase 'Only supports changing admin status' gives an explicit exclusion, telling the agent when not to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state 'use this when you need to update a user's admin status,' but that is clearly implied by the scope.

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