update-user

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the guardrail (bridge user's role and last gamemaster cannot be demoted) and notes GM admin requirement. However, it does not describe side effects, return value, or error behavior. The guardrail is also present in the schema's role description, so duplication, but the GM admin note is new.

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?

Two concise sentences with the main purpose front-loaded. No redundant phrasing. The guardrail is appended without bloat. Efficient and well-structured.

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 6 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description gives a good overview but omits return behavior and error conditions. The guardrail is mentioned but not the success/failure response. It is adequate but not fully complete for a mutation tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description merely lists the fields already detailed in the schema without adding new meaning. It provides an example for role demotion but that's also in schema. No additional semantics.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (update a Foundry user account) and enumerates the editable fields (role, login name, color, pronouns, character). The example 'demote a trusted player to player' makes it concrete. It is distinct from siblings like set-user-avatar or list-users.

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 implies usage for updating user accounts but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to. It mentions GM admin as a prerequisite, which gives clear context, but lacks explicit alternative routing or exclusions.

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