rybbit_update_user_traits

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explicitly discloses wholesale replacement behavior, a serialized size limit of 2KB, and the required OAuth scope. This is strong transparency for a mutation tool, though it doesn't detail failure modes or return values.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the action; the second packs the critical warnings. Perfectly sized.

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 simple replace operation, the description covers the essential context: operation type, replacement semantics, size limit, and auth. It lacks explicit handling of invalid JSON or user-not-found, but given the availability of sibling tools and the lack of an output schema, this is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already documents each parameter (100% coverage). The description reinforces that 'traits' is a complete replacement and adds the 2KB serialization limit, which is relevant to the traits parameter. This is a modest addition beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Replace the profile traits of an identified user' – a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_user_info or delete_user. The added warning about wholesale replacement reinforces the precise purpose.

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 states it replaces all traits and warns to include every trait to keep, which implies when this tool is appropriate (full overwrite). It also notes the users:write scope prerequisite. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for partial updates or merges, so it's not fully explicit about when not to use.

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