Base Account Update User

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

Annotations are explicitly 'None provided', so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update employee account information', implying mutation but not revealing side effects, idempotency, error handling, permission requirements, or input constraints beyond the schema. For a complex update operation with 13 parameters, this is insufficient.

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, short sentence in Vietnamese. It is concise and front-loaded with the core action, containing no redundant words. However, given the tool's complexity, the conciseness is a miss more than a hit—it's too sparse, but the form itself is efficient.

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?

The tool has 13 parameters, only 1 required, and an output schema exists (though not shown). The description does not cover parameter relationships, expected input formats, or any usage nuances. With no annotations and no parameter details, the description is far from complete for correct invocation. The existence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but the overall context is still lacking.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no explanation of any parameter. The 13 parameters (username, email, phone, etc.) are not described at all. An agent cannot infer the meaning, format, or relationships between them. The description provides zero value beyond the raw 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?

The description clearly states the verb (update) and resource (employee account information on Base Account). This is unambiguous and distinguishes it from create, delete, and search sibling tools by the action alone. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or detail the specific fields affected, so it's not a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., authentication via access_token), conditions for use, or scenarios where another tool like base_account_enable_user or base_account_create_user would be more appropriate. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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