Benutzer aktualisieren

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It merely restates the tool's title and does not mention that this is a mutation, whether it is partial or full update, permission requirements, or any side effects. The description adds no value beyond the name and title.

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 short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It repeats the tool's name/title without adding structured information. In this context, minimalism is not conciseness; it fails to earn its place with useful content.

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 tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what fields are updated, how updates are applied (partial vs. full), what the response is, or any side effects. A mutation tool with this complexity requires far more context.

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 schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra semantic information about parameters, but the schema already documents each field clearly (email, roles, names, etc.). The description does not compensate for any gaps because none exist.

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 'Aktualisiert einen WordPress-Benutzer' clearly states a specific action (update) and a resource (WordPress user), distinguishing it from sibling tools like admin_delete_user and admin_get_user. However, it lacks explicit differentiation in terms of scope or related alternatives, so it doesn't reach the top score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as admin_create_user or admin_delete_user. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues beyond the verb 'update'.

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