provider_update_user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the title already carries the PUT endpoint, so the description's endpoint restatement adds little. The role-based restriction ('non-administrator may only modify their own password') is genuine added context, but it omits that PUT replaces the whole user spec (username is required and omitted fields may be cleared) and says nothing about the response.

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 core restriction is stated first, which is good, but 'Modify the details of a user' is immediately restated as 'Modify basic details of the specified user', and the raw 'PUT /cloudapi/1.0.0/users/{userUrn}' line duplicates the annotation title. Meaningful content could fit in half the 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?

For a mutation tool with a large nested user-spec body and no output schema, the description covers permissions but leaves the most operationally risky behavior unstated: PUT semantics (full replacement vs partial update), and what a successful call returns. An agent could call it correctly but might unintentionally wipe fields.

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% and the nested body schema documents every field in detail, so the schema does the heavy lifting (baseline 3). The description's role restriction hints at which fields are actually writable by a given caller, but never maps that to specific body fields such as locked, enabled, providerType or roleEntityRefs.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Modify the details of a user') and adds the PUT endpoint path, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from overlapping siblings such as provider_change_password or provider_modify_user_groups, which also alter a user's state.

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?

It gives real authorization context: a non-administrator may only modify their own password, while an administrator can edit any user. That establishes who may call it, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over provider_change_password or provider_modify_user_groups for password/group changes.

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