ACF User Felder aktualisieren

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'updates' without disclosing whether fields are merged or replaced, whether it requires an existing user, what permissions are needed, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, clear sentence with no filler. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action and resource, though it could be expanded without becoming verbose. Minimal size earns a high but not perfect score because it omits important behavioral details.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain return values, merge semantics, error handling, or any caveats. The schema covers parameters, but the overall context is incomplete for an agent to use it safely and effectively.

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 descriptions for both parameters (userId and fields as key-value object). The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, which already explains the fields container and user ID. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the parameter definitions adequately.

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 uses a specific verb (Aktualisiert/updates) and a clear resource (ACF custom fields of a user), which distinguishes it from siblings like acf_update_post_fields and acf_get_user_fields. The title reinforces the user-specific target, leaving no ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as acf_get_user_fields first to read fields or acf_update_post_fields for posts. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context hints, so the agent gets no help choosing among related ACF tools.

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