update_user

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it updates a user, implying mutation, but does not disclose failure behavior (e.g., what happens if the user is not found), whether only provided fields are updated or all fields are reset, or any auth/rate-limit requirements. For a mutation tool with 14 parameters and no annotations, 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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words—hence it is concise. However, it is under-specified, not merely efficient. It lacks essential behavioral details and parameter guidance, so the brevity works against its usefulness. It's a borderline case: conciseness in structure but not in content.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (14 parameters, mutation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is woefully incomplete. It does not mention return values, error handling, field update semantics (partial vs replace), or any constraints. The only saving grace is the identifier-format note, but that is insufficient for safe and correct invocation by an agent.

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 only 14% (only roles and user_id have descriptions). The description adds a note about user_id accepting sys_id, username, or email, but this duplicates the schema's own description for that field. It provides no additional meaning for the other 13 parameters, many of which (e.g., password, manager, location) could benefit from clarification. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 'Update an existing user' with a specific verb and resource. It also specifies that the user can be identified by sys_id, username, or email, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_user (creation) and get_user (read). No ambiguity remains about the tool's core function.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as create_user for new users or get_user for read-only access. It also doesn't mention any prerequisites or conditions (e.g., the user must already exist). The only hint is the word 'existing', but that's implicit and not a clear routing instruction.

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