admin_update_portal_user

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Update a portal user'. It fails to mention that it mutates data, requires authentication, or any side effects. The agent cannot infer safety or idempotency.

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 sentence, but it is too sparse for a tool with 5 parameters. Conciseness should not sacrifice necessary information; here it omits critical context, making it under-specified rather than effectively concise.

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?

The description is grossly incomplete given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, 0 annotations) and the presence of 4 sibling portal user tools. It provides no context on return values, error conditions, or relationship to other tools.

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?

Only 20% of parameters have descriptions in the schema, yet the description adds no parameter context. It does not explain the purpose of email, password, password_confirmation, or portal_group_id, leaving the agent to guess their roles and constraints.

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?

Description 'Update a portal user' clearly states the action and resource, but it essentially restates the tool name and does not scope the update (e.g., which fields). It distinguishes from siblings only by the verb, lacking specificity to uniquely identify the tool's purpose.

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 tool versus alternatives like admin_create_portal_user or admin_list_portal_users. There are no usage scenarios, preconditions, or exclusions provided.

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