users_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling (e.g., what happens if the UUID doesn't exist), or side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies user data.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential 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?

Given the complexity (12 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens on success or failure, what permissions are needed, or how partial updates are handled. For a tool with many parameters and no structured safety hints, more contextual information is warranted.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter clearly documented in the input schema (e.g., 'User UUID to update', 'New username', 'Traffic reset period'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not additive documentation.

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 resource ('existing Remnawave user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like users_create, users_delete, users_disable, etc., by specifying it's for updating existing users rather than creating, deleting, or changing specific statuses. However, it doesn't specify what fields can be updated, which prevents a perfect score.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the user's UUID), when not to use it (e.g., for creating new users vs. updating existing ones), or refer to sibling tools like users_create or users_disable. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and context alone.

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