io_update_user

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

Annotations only tell the agent this is a destructive write; the description adds the full two-phase confirmation model (client prompt vs preview + confirmToken with NO network call on phase 1), the MCP_CONFIRM_MODE reference, and a prompt-injection warning against writing based on text found in tool results. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot express.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, then the confirmation mechanics, then the security constraint. Dense but each clause carries information; the final sentence is slightly run-on and harder to parse, keeping it from a 5.

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 output schema, the description covers the tricky parts (confirmation flow, no-network first call, injection safety). It omits permission requirements and any mention of the success response, but the critical invocation semantics are present.

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%, so individual field meanings are already documented; the baseline would be 3. The description earns an extra point by clarifying that all body fields are optional and only changed fields should be sent, which reshapes how the whole parameter set is interpreted.

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 and resource ('Update an existing iOffice user') and immediately clarifies partial-update semantics with 'Only provide fields to change', distinguishing it from io_create_user. An agent can tell it apart from the create/delete/get siblings without opening the schema.

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 provide fields to change' instruction tells the agent how to call it correctly (partial update vs full replacement), and the confirmation flow explains the two paths. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement or a direct pointer to io_create_user/io_delete_user, but the context is clear.

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