paymenter_update_user

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. It never says whether this is a partial or full-replace update (critical with 6 optional fields), whether omitted fields are cleared or preserved, whether changing email invalidates email_verified_at, or what permissions are required. 'Update' alone leaves these mutation semantics undisclosed.

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. It is efficient, though the terseness is part of why behavioral and usage context are missing rather than a virtue in itself.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum cover partial-update semantics and the effect of credential changes. None of that is present, so an agent must guess at the most consequential behavior.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description's 'profile or credentials' grouping adds only marginal framing beyond what the per-field descriptions already say.

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?

States a specific verb (update) and resource (user), and the phrase 'existing user' plus 'profile or credentials' maps to the sibling set (create_user, delete_user, get_user) without ambiguity. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling to redirect from, so it falls just 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?

No guidance on when to use this rather than paymenter_create_user or paymenter_get_user, and no prerequisites stated (e.g., does the user have to exist / must you fetch first?). For a mutation tool among 33 siblings, at least one routing or precondition sentence is expected.

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