rm_update_user

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Update' is consistent with a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds no extra behavioral details such as partial-update semantics, validation rules, permission requirements, or consequences of archiving. No contradiction with annotations.

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 13-word sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, with no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to the core purpose; it is appropriately concise for what it attempts to convey.

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 10-parameter mutating tool with zero schema descriptions, the description is too sparse to fully support correct invocation. It omits the required user_id role, patch-like update behavior, validation expectations for role/discipline/bill_rate, and archive consequences. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values, but key usage context is still missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the 10 parameters. It covers role, discipline, bill_rate, and archived, and loosely groups first_name/last_name/email under 'profile', but it omits cost_rate, billability_target, and user_id, and does not clarify whether omitted fields remain unchanged. The property titles are self-evident, but the description still leaves meaningful gaps.

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 the concrete verb 'Update' with 'user' as the resource and enumerates the specific mutable aspects: profile, role, discipline, bill rate, or archive state. This clearly distinguishes it from rm_create_user, rm_delete_user, and rm_get_user. It does not explicitly differentiate from rm_update_role or rm_set_user_status, but the field list makes the target unambiguous enough.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. An agent could confuse updating a user's role with rm_update_role, or a user's status with rm_set_user_status. The field list only implies the usage context; no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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