Update User

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

Annotations already communicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful behavior (PUT method, partial update, id=0 special case) but does not disclose other potential side effects or prerequisites such as password confirmation requirements, which remain only in the schema.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the endpoint, action, and key usage tip without any fluff. Every word adds value.

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 of 17 parameters and no output schema, the description is concise but still provides the essential context for selecting the tool: it updates an existing user, supports partial updates, and has a special id=0 case. The rich schema and annotations cover the remaining invocation details.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a detailed description. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 clearly states the tool's action ('Update an existing user by ID'), includes the HTTP method and resource, and adds a distinctive special case (id=0 for current user). This distinguishes it from sibling update tools like gorgias_update_customer or gorgias_update_tag.

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 provides a clear usage guideline: 'Only include fields to modify' indicates partial update semantics. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like gorgias_create_user, but the guidance is sufficient for typical use cases.

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