users_update_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update profile fields', which conveys mutation but nothing about partial updates, error behavior, authorization needs, or side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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 a single clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it is so brief that it misses the opportunity to add usage or behavioral context, though that is a matter of completeness rather than conciseness.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and no output schema, the description offers minimal context. For a mutation tool, agents would benefit from knowing whether unspecified fields remain unchanged, whether the user must exist, and what the response contains. The simple three-parameter schema does not compensate for this absence.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter (name, email, user_id). The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond 'profile fields', which is already implied by the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the necessary work.

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 clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('existing user account'), with a specific scope ('profile fields'). It distinguishes from siblings like users_create_user, users_delete_user, and users_set_user_role, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as users_set_user_role or users_reset_user_password. There is no mention of prerequisites, or explicit 'when not to use', leaving agents to infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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