users_update

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

The description adds value beyond annotations: it specifies the HTTP method (PUT) and the requirement to include all required fields. While it doesn't detail side effects or permissions, the annotations already indicate this is not read-only. The description provides sufficient behavioral context for a standard update operation.

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, well-formed sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key constraint. Every word adds value; no fluff or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema and is a straightforward update operation, the description covers the essentials: what it does and the requirement for a complete body. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., user existence) or error conditions, but for a PUT operation, this is adequately complete.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description restates the constraint but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 clearly states 'Replace a user via PUT' with the specific constraint 'must include all required fields'. It identifies the action (replace), resource (user), HTTP method (PUT), and a key constraint, effectively distinguishing from siblings like users_patch which would handle partial updates.

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 description implies this tool is for full replacement by stating 'must include all required fields', suggesting it should be used when providing a complete user object. It does not explicitly contrast with users_patch for partial updates, but the context of sibling tools allows inference. The guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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