update_user

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool 'update's but does not describe side effects (e.g., whether other fields are affected), authorization requirements, partial vs. full update behavior, or error conditions. This is insufficient 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 single concise sentence with no fluff, front-loading the key action and resource. However, it could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness, given the tool's complexity.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not specify return values, validation rules, partial update behavior, or required permissions, which are critical for correct invocation.

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 only 17% (only 'role' described). The description adds 'details or role' but provides no explanation for individual parameters like 'avatar', 'email', or 'isActive'. It does not compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving agents uncertain about parameter usage.

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 'Update an admin user's details or role' clearly identifies the action (update) and the resource (admin user). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_users (read) and delete_user (delete). However, it does not specify which details can be updated, which is left to the schema.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions. The description implies usage for updating admin users but offers no exclusions or alternatives, which is minimal for effective decision-making.

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