Users: Update a user

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, open-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond them: the required auth mode (Platform app API key via api-access-token header), that extra_body merges unlisted fields, and that Persian/Arabic-Indic digits and text pass through unchanged. It stops short of describing partial-update semantics or what happens to fields left unset.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then layers endpoint, auth, and encoding notes; every sentence carries information. It is dense but not padded, though the bracketed tag and trailing encoding caveat slightly dilute the core message.

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 6-parameter update method with no output schema, the description covers purpose, endpoint, auth, body fields, and encoding behavior adequately. It omits error/permission outcomes and return behavior, which is acceptable given the absence of an output schema but leaves minor gaps for a mutation tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds non-obvious semantic value not in the schema: the Persian/Arabic-Indic digit and multi-language handling, plus confirmation of which fields form the body. The field list itself is somewhat redundant with the schema, keeping this just above baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Update a user's attributes") plus the concrete endpoint PATCH /platform/api/v1/users/{id}, so the agent knows exactly what this does. It does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from the sibling update tools (update_account, update_agent_bot), but the verb+resource is 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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as update_account, create_user, or get_user; the reader is left to infer from the name alone. The only usage-flavored notes (extra_body passthrough, language/digit handling) describe invocation mechanics rather than tool selection.

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