Modify an existing TestMonitor user by unique identifier using partial updates—change name, email, locale, or timezone without overwriting unchanged fields.
Update a user. Update a user using its unique identifier.
This endpoint supports partial updates, so you only need to include the fields you want to change.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing partial-update semantics (unspecified fields are left alone), but it says nothing about failure modes, permissions, or how conflicts are handled.
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?
It is short and front-loads the core action. The second sentence ("Update a user using its unique identifier") repeats the first almost verbatim and is close to wasted space, keeping it below a 5.
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 mutation tool with annotations present and no output schema, the description covers the essentials and the partial-update semantics. It omits permissions/auth requirements, error behavior for an unknown userId, and any note on how remaining fields are preserved, all of which a destructive update warrants.
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?
With only two parameters and 0% top-level schema description coverage, the description compensates minimally: "using its unique identifier" maps to the path.userId param and "partial updates" frames the body object. It names no updatable fields and adds essentially nothing beyond what the nested body property descriptions already provide.
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 states a concrete verb+resource ("Update a user"), which cleanly separates it from the sibling post_user, get_user, delete_user, and archive_user. The second sentence restates the same fact with extra words rather than differentiating it from alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
It gives one genuinely useful invocation guideline (partial updates — only send the fields you want to change), which tells the agent how to call it. However, it gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance and never mentions related siblings such as archive_user or make_admin_user that an agent might confound with an update.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.