update_user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which communicates the safety profile. The description adds little behavioral context beyond 'existing' and 'by ID', and it does not contradict the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It conveys the essential action, target resource, and key requirement in only eight words.

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?

With a rich schema, annotations, and an output schema, the description does not need to restate parameter or return details. However, for a 9-parameter mutation tool, some guidance about partial updates (e.g., only provided fields are changed) or the need to obtain user_id from search_users would improve completeness.

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%, so the parameter schema fully documents all nine fields including their descriptions and defaults. The description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond highlighting user_id via 'by ID', but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 uses the specific verb 'Update' with a clear resource ('existing pfSense local user') and method ('by ID'). It immediately distinguishes this tool from create_user, delete_user, and search_users by focusing on updating an already-existing user.

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?

The phrase 'existing' and 'by ID' implicitly suggests this tool is not for creating users and that a user ID is required, likely obtained from search_users. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over create_user/delete_user or mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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