update_user_field_schema

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only included fields change, omitted fields keep current settings, and it's an admin/configuration tool. Could mention permissions or reversibility, but the current disclosure is strong.

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?

Well-structured with purpose first, then usage conditions, field keys, and examples. Slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. The examples are particularly helpful.

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 no output schema, the description need not explain return values. It covers input parameters thoroughly, usage context, field keys, examples, and references sibling tools. All necessary information is 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 description coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant value: explains the shortcut vs. updates parameter, lists common field keys, and provides multiple examples. This goes well beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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 'Update display and filter settings for specific user fields' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_user_field_schema (read) and refresh/reorder variants by indicating it's a configuration update tool.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'when the operator wants to show or hide a field... enable/disable for filtering.' Also clarifies when not to use: 'not a prerequisite for ordinary filtered user-list requests.' Provides field key guidance and examples.

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