update_user

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a generic 'update' by revealing that admin privileges are required, that locking is reversible, that the server does not expose user deletion, and by defining the exact semantics of status and admin values. This is rich, actionable context for an agent.

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 well-organized: a one-sentence purpose, a short contextual note about locking vs deletion, and a cleanly formatted Args list. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, and the structure allows quick scanning. It is appropriately sized for a 7-parameter admin 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 the complexity (7 parameters, 1 required, no enums) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides all necessary context: parameter semantics, behavioral nuances (locking, no deletion), and privilege requirements. The agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly without needing to consult external docs.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so with a detailed Args list that explains every parameter: user_id, login, firstname, lastname, email, status, and admin, including sentinel values like 'empty = leave alone' and numeric codes for status/admin. This fully covers the parameter semantics.

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 opens with 'Update a user', a specific verb+resource pair that clearly identifies the tool's function. It also explains locking as a reversible alternative to deletion, which distinguishes it from deletion-related operations and clarifies its role within user management.

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 description states 'Requires administrator privileges', establishing a prerequisite and implying use by admins. It also explains that locking is the server's supported way to remove access and that real deletion is only a web UI operation, providing clear when-not guidance. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool (e.g., 'use update_my_account for self-service'), so it falls short of a 5.

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