PUT /users/{id}

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's job is to add detail — yet it adds nothing. Crucially, it says "Update a user" without disclosing that this is a PUT that replaces the user record, nor that omitted fields may be reset, nor the presence of the write-confirmation gate.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, which is good, but the second sentence ("Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation usersid-2") is pure provenance filler that gives an agent nothing actionable. Two sentences, one of which earns no place.

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 destructive write with a 21-field nested body, no output schema, and a conditional `confirm` requirement, this is significantly underspecified — no field semantics, no replacement-vs-merge behavior, no note on failure modes or required permissions.

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 67% and, worse, the nested `body` object contains 21 properties (vip, groups, permissions, password, two_factor_*, etc.) with no descriptions anywhere. The description does not name a single updatable field or clarify whether partial updates are safe, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a verb and resource ("Update a user") on top of the raw path, so the purpose is graspable. But it says nothing about scope, and with siblings like snipeit_gen_usersid, snipeit_gen_usersid_1, snipeit_gen_users_2 and snipeit_gen_users_3 in the same family there is zero differentiation — an agent cannot tell which user-mutating endpoint this is without inspecting 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?

There is no indication of when to use this versus snipeit_gen_usersid_1, snipeit_get_user, or snipeit_raw_request, nor any prerequisites (e.g. that the `confirm` flag is required when SNIPEIT_CONFIRM_WRITES is enabled). The description offers no usage context at all.

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