user_update

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states a mutation operation. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as authorization requirements, idempotence, error handling for nonexistent users, or any side effects.

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, but it is overly brief and lacks important details. It is concise but at the expense of completeness, making it minimally adequate.

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 three parameters including a nested object and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what fields are updatable in 'body', what the 'options' object may contain, or what the tool returns after update.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The 'body' parameter is an object with a generic description ('Updated user details'), which could be clarified.

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) and resource (existing database user). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'atlas_user_update', which updates Atlas users. The tool name 'user_update' and sibling presence suggest this is for non-Atlas users, but the description lacks this context.

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 like 'user_create' or 'atlas_user_update'. No prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions are mentioned.

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