Update User

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is carried by structured data; the description adds the non-obvious server-side write gate, which is real value. However, it omits key behavior for a mutation: whether omitted fields are left unchanged, what happens on an unknown userId, and why the operation is non-idempotent.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the mutable field list and followed by the prerequisite. No filler and nothing buried.

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 7-parameter mutation with no output schema and low schema description coverage, the description covers the field set and the write-enable prerequisite but leaves the partial-update contract and error behavior unstated. Adequate to attempt a call, not complete enough to call confidently.

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 only 29% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate — and it partly does by enumerating the mutable fields (name, email, team, cost code, employee id), which maps onto firstName/lastName, email, teamId, costCode and employeeId. It never mentions that userId is required or that these are optional partial-update fields, so the mapping to the schema still requires inference.

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?

States a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('a user') and enumerates the mutable fields, so an agent immediately knows this is a partial user update. It implicitly distinguishes itself from telgea_create_user and telgea_update_team by naming the target resource and its fields, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 only usage guidance is the prerequisite 'Requires TELGEA_ENABLE_WRITES=true on the server', which is genuinely useful operational context. There is no statement of when to prefer this over telgea_create_user or how it relates to other mutating tools, and no explicit exclusions.

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