users_modify

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only mentions modifying a user and returning updated info, but does not disclose whether updates are partial/full, permission requirements, or side effects. This is minimal for a mutation 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 well-structured docstring with Args and Returns, front-loaded with purpose, and contains no redundant or unnecessary text.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the tool is a mutation with no annotations. The description lacks details on permitted user_data fields, required permissions, partial vs. full update semantics, and error behavior, making it inadequate for a modification tool of this complexity.

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 description lists and explains all three parameters (user_id, user_data, include), which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, user_data's explanation ('Dictionary containing the fields to update') is vague and does not enumerate allowed fields.

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 states 'Modify a user account' with a clear [Users/Management] scope. This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from sibling tools like users_delete, users_get, and users_list.

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 verb 'Modify' implies updating an existing user, providing clear context, but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are mentioned. Usage is inferred rather than explicitly stated.

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