user_update

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds the partial-update behavior ('Only specify the fields you want to change'), which implies omitted fields are preserved. It does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., username-change issues) or permissions required, so it adds moderate but not deep behavioral context.

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?

Two clear sentences with no fluff; the core purpose is front-loaded and the usage guidance is succinct. Efficient and easily scannable, though it could be slightly more structured with an explicit 'when to use' clause.

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?

Includes an output schema, so return details are covered elsewhere. The description explains the core modification options but omits mention of the 'username' field and associated risks, which are only present in the schema. For a 6-parameter tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description lists some fields (name, surname, password, role) but omits 'username' and does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the informational load.

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?

Description states the specific action 'Update an existing user in Zabbix' with a clear verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like user_create and user_delete. It also lists commonly changed fields (name, surname, password, role), making the purpose 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?

Provides context that this is for updating existing users and instructs 'Only specify the fields you want to change', which clarifies partial-update semantics. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., for creating new users), so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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