sw_update_user

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Update' without revealing critical traits. The schema shows a 'confirm' parameter that 'Must be true to proceed. Without this, the tool returns a preview.' This preview/mutation toggle is a major behavioral nuance that the description omits, making it misleading for an agent invoking the 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 concise sentence, efficiently conveying the purpose and the critical id constraint without any fluff. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 annotations, no output schema, and only 25% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention the confirm/preview mechanism, the specific updatable fields, or what happens on success. An agent would lack essential context to use the tool correctly, especially the required confirm=true behavior for an actual update.

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 25% (id and confirm have descriptions). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema; it generically says 'profile fields' without enumerating which fields (email, locale, password, names, currency) are updatable. It also repeats the id constraint already in the schema, providing no additional semantic 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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Update the current user's profile fields.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sw_get_current_user (read) and sw_update_expense (different resource). The constraint 'id must be the current user's id' further scopes the tool precisely.

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 makes clear this tool is for updating the current user's own profile by requiring the id to be the current user's id. This implies you should not use it for other users. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like sw_get_current_user for reading, so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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