Update a user

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

The description discloses a meaningful side effect beyond the annotations: 'promoting to administrator grants full site control.' This adds real behavioral context about privilege escalation that annotations do not convey. It does not contradict readOnlyHint=false or destructiveHint=false. The password session-invalidation effect lives in the schema, not the description, but the description's added role warning earns a strong score.

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 sentences with no waste. The first states the action and fields; the second flags the security-relevant consequence. The role warning, while peripheral to the mechanics, earns its place because it is high-stakes behavior an agent must weigh before invoking. Well front-loaded.

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 14-parameter tool with a nested object and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the most consequential behavior (role escalation). Since schema coverage is 100%, the description need not enumerate every param. The one gap is how the update is applied (replace vs merge) for fields like roles — 'Replace the user's roles' is in the schema, not the description, but the description remains sufficient for correct invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description maps to key params (profile, email, password, roles) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. The role escalation note touches on the 'roles' param semantics, but the schema already documents each field, so the description adds marginal value.

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 verb+resource ('Update a user') and enumerates the mutable fields: 'profile, email, password or roles'. It is distinct from the sibling set (get_user/create_user/delete_user) — 'update' unambiguously targets an existing user — though the differentiation relies on conventional naming rather than an explicit contrast.

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?

Usage context is implied but not stated. The description does not explicitly say 'use this to modify an existing user, use create_user for a new one', nor does it list when not to use it. The role-change warning hints at caution, but no when/when-not alternatives are named. Adequate but leaves routing to convention.

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