Update my account

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds the self-scoping constraint and the mutable fields, but omits key behavioral details: all three params are optional (partial update), how uniqueness/validation of mail is handled, and the response behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Efficient, though the extreme terseness leaves valuable space unused for a mutation tool.

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 0% parameter documentation, no output schema, and all-optional params, the description is too thin. It never states that a partial update is possible, what happens on invalid mail, or what the call returns, so an agent cannot invoke it confidently.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It names mail and 'name' (covering firstname/lastname) but does not explain the split between first and last name, optionality, formats, uniqueness constraints, or the minLength:1 requirement. It only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Updates the signed-in account name or mail address.' The 'signed-in' scoping distinguishes it from sibling reads like users_get_current and users_list, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative writer. The field list maps to firstname/lastname/mail in the schema.

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?

Usage is only implied by the 'signed-in account' scoping and the update verb. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites (e.g. must be authenticated), and no pointer to alternatives for editing other users. Minimum viable, not more.

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