update-user

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update a user's information' without revealing how the update works (e.g., merge vs. replace), required permissions, side effects, or validation behavior, leaving significant ambiguity.

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, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose. While it is minimal, it does not waste words and is appropriately structured for a simple update operation.

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 lack of annotations, no output schema, and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is too thin to be considered complete. It fails to address critical aspects such as the nature of the update (full vs. partial), authentication requirements, success/error behavior, or when to prefer this tool over 'update-object'.

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 provides descriptions for both parameters ('userId' and 'data'), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without enhancing it.

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 clearly states the verb 'update' and the resource 'user's information', making the tool's primary function obvious. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'update-object', which could also update user objects, so it lacks sibling distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update-object' or other user-related mutation tools. The description provides no context about prerequisites, restrictions, or exclusions.

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