user_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies mutation but does not mention side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or error behavior. For an update operation, this is insufficient transparency.

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 concise: a one-line purpose followed by a parameter list. It front-loads the action and uses bullet points. No unnecessary sentences, though some behavioral info is missing.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description lists only parameters, failing to explain return values (e.g., success flag or updated user object), error conditions, or prerequisites. Incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 description adds Chinese explanations for each parameter (e.g., '邮箱' for email, '是否启用' for is_active), which provides meaning beyond the English schema titles. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this addition is valuable.

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 tool name 'user_update' and description '更新用户信息' clearly describe updating user information. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like user_create, user_delete, and user_list, which have different CRUD operations.

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 only states the action and lists parameters. There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use user_create instead) or any prerequisites (e.g., user must exist). No context about when not to use it.

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