avanan_update_msp_user

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. It correctly signals that this is a mutation and notes that all fields are required, but it does not describe side effects, authorization requirements, overwrite behavior, idempotency, or what happens on failure. For a full-object update this is a significant transparency 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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action and key constraint ('all fields are required') are front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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?

Despite the high complexity (10 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description provides only the mutation intent and the all-fields-required constraint. It omits guidance on fetching current values before updating, handling partial updates, response expectations, and distinguishing this from create_msp_user. The description is not sufficient for confident use beyond the schema.

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 input schema already describes all 10 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond restating that all fields are required, which is already encoded in the schema's required array.

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 states a specific action ('Update'), a specific resource ('MSP user'), and the identifying key ('by ID'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like create/get/list/delete MSP user. The purpose is immediately 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 tool's purpose implies it should be used to modify an existing MSP user rather than create or delete one, but the description does not explicitly say when to choose this over alternatives or mention any exclusions, such as needing an existing user ID. This is implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

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