Update a subuser

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the PUT path, which merely restates 'update'; it does not say whether omitted fields are preserved, whether the call replaces or patches, or what permissions are required.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action. The parenthetical HTTP endpoint is largely redundant with 'update' but does at least confirm the endpoint mapping.

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 15-parameter mutation with a nested object and no output schema, the description is far too thin: it never explains partial-vs-full update semantics, required vs optional behavior (only id is required), or the effect of fields like admin_user and permissions.

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 nominally 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. In practice the schema descriptions are placeholders ('Body field did.'), and the tool description compensates for none of them, so it adds no real semantic value for the 15 parameters, including the nested 'permissions' object.

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 and resource ('Update a subuser'), which is enough to separate it from create_user/get_user/delete_user in the sibling list. However, 'subuser' does not match the naming of the sibling user tools, and the agent could plausibly confuse it with placetel_update_sip_user; the description gives no clarification.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus placetel_update_sip_user or the other user tooling, no prerequisites, and no note on which fields are actually editable. The agent has to infer everything from the schema.

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