update_user

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only mentions "Disabled in read-only mode," which is a global availability note, not a behavioral trait of the update operation. It doesn't describe side effects, required permissions, or mutation semantics. The description fails to explain what "update account access" entails beyond the literal phrase.

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 two short sentences with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and includes a note about read-only mode. While it is efficient, the brevity comes at the cost of utility, but the formatting itself is clean and concise.

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 4 required parameters, a nested object, an output schema, and no annotations, the description must compensate with richer context. It only provides a high-level purpose and a read-only note, leaving significant gaps: what does "account access" update imply? How does update_mask interact? What fields are modifiable? The output schema might cover return values, but the operation's semantics are under-specified.

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 covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so it relies entirely on the schema. Since schema coverage is high, baseline 3 is appropriate; the description does not enhance parameter understanding but also doesn't mislead.

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 action: "Update a user's account access." It identifies the specific resource (user account access) and the verb (update), and distinguishes from siblings like create_user, delete_user, and list_users. This is precise and unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions beyond the read-only note. It doesn't clarify if this is for account access only vs. profile changes, or what scenarios require this tool. The absence of usage context leaves the agent guessing.

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