update_users_by_itemUpdate a user account by item ID and email, adjusting roles, permissions, household, and other profile settings as needed.
Update User
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| admin | No | ||
| Yes | |||
| group | No | ||
| item_id | Yes | ||
| advanced | No | ||
| fullName | No | ||
| username | No | ||
| canInvite | No | ||
| canManage | No | ||
| household | No | ||
| authMethod | No | ||
| canOrganize | No | ||
| accept-language | No | ||
| showAnnouncements | No | ||
| canManageHousehold | No | ||
| lastReadAnnouncement | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.20.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, but "Update User" reveals nothing beyond the action itself. It does not mention permission requirements, whether this is a full or partial update, side effects, or 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?
The description is very short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. "Update User" does not earn its place because it adds no information beyond the title and provides no value to an agent.
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 tool with 17 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many update-related siblings, a two-word description is completely inadequate. An agent lacks essential information about how to construct a valid request and which behavior to expect.
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% and there are 17 parameters, yet the description adds no meaning to any of them. It does not explain what item_id and email are for, which fields are optional, or how the many boolean and nullable fields relate to the update operation.
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 "Update User" merely restates the tool name and title without specifying the resource scope, the "by item" relationship, or what fields can be updated. It does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like update_admin_users_by_item or update_recipes_timeline_events_by_item, so an agent cannot tell which update tool is appropriate.
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 the many sibling update tools, nor any mention of prerequisites, target user context, or exclusion criteria. The description provides no usable context for selecting this tool over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.