Update Microsoft 365 User

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

Annotations establish that the tool is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds behavioral transparency beyond annotations by specifying the PATCH method and emphasizing that only provided fields are changed. It also gives concrete, real-world examples of accountEnabled usage. This aligns with annotations and adds useful context about side effects and scope of changes.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose ('Update attributes on an existing user (PATCH)'), followed by a specific, high-value use case and a behavioral note. Every word contributes, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite having 19 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's core purpose and behavior: it updates existing users, uses PATCH semantics, and specifically highlights accountEnabled for account lifecycle management. The 'existing user' qualifier sets the context. While individual attributes are not enumerated, the generic 'Update attributes' phrase signals that any of the schema properties may be set, making the description sufficient for overall tool selection.

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 for explaining parameter meanings. It only explains accountEnabled (to enable/disable accounts), while the other 18 parameters (e.g., city, state, otherMails) receive no additional semantic context beyond their names. The schema already shows property names and types, but the description fails to clarify how these attributes are used or their business meaning, leaving most parameters without added 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Update attributes on an existing user (PATCH)'. It specifies the verb (update), the resource (existing user), and the HTTP method, distinguishing it from create_user and specific setter tools like set_usage_location. The accountEnabled example further clarifies a key use case.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: updating existing users, enabling/disabling accounts via accountEnabled (e.g., activating pre-created hires or disabling leavers). It also notes that only provided fields are changed, setting expectations for partial updates. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for specific operations.

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