Update User

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the read-only mode restriction, which is useful, but it does not explain permissions, reversibility, side effects, partial-update behavior, or response semantics. For a mutating operation, 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 concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated in the first sentence and the read-only constraint in the second. It wastes no words, though it may be slightly too terse for a multi-parameter mutation tool.

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 four required parameters including a nested user object, no annotations, and no guidance about behavior beyond a mutation, the description is not complete enough for an agent to confidently invoke the tool. Key details about update_mask semantics, expected effects, and prerequisites are missing.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the schema already provides meaning for developer_id, email, user, and update_mask. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clear action ('Update') and resource ('a user's account access'). It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like create_user, list_users, and delete_user by implying a mutation of existing user access settings, though it does not explicitly name the alternatives.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_grant or create_user. The only hint, 'Disabled in read-only mode,' describes an operational constraint but does not explain selection criteria or context.

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