users_update_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether this is a partial or full replacement, what permissions are required, what happens to omitted fields, or whether the change is reversible. The only added detail is that the body follows a JSON:API envelope defined in an external OpenAPI component, which is a small but real protocol hint.

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 text is short, but it wastes space on a literal duplicate of the same route string in parentheses and on a generic pointer, rather than spending those tokens on what the tool actually does.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an opaque nested body (additionalProperties only, shape defined elsewhere), the description should explain what can be updated and the semantics of the operation. It leaves the agent without enough context to invoke the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 applies. Pointing to components.schemas.UserUpdateRequest for the nested body is mildly useful but is already echoed in the body parameter's own schema description.

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 gives an HTTP method and resource path (PATCH /v1/users/{id}), which implies updating a user, but it never states the purpose in plain language and does nothing to distinguish it from the many other *_update_instance siblings such as merchant_ids_update_instance.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus users_get_instance, users_delete_instance, or any other update tool, and no prerequisites or preconditions are mentioned. The agent is left to infer everything from the route string.

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