update_user

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers two substantive behaviors: partial-update semantics (omitted fields preserved) and a specific failure mode (409 on email/username conflict). It omits other behavioral context such as permission requirements or behavior on non-conflict errors, but the disclosed traits are the ones an agent most needs for a mutation call.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the core action and its update semantics are front-loaded, followed immediately by the notable error condition. Every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics and the key failure mode. It stops short of describing required permissions or the response shape, but no output schema exists to signal those are needed.

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% (user_id plus the nested user object and its four fields are all documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds the PATCH nuance that sub-fields may be omitted, but it does not otherwise extend parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Update attributes of a user') and adds the PATCH-semantics qualifier, which implicitly distinguishes it from a full-replace sibling like scim_replace_user. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

'Uses PATCH semantics — omitted fields unchanged' implies when this tool is appropriate (partial modification rather than replacement), giving usable context. However, it never names the alternative replace/update siblings or states exclusions or prerequisites, leaving usage largely to inference.

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