yougile_update_user

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

The annotations mark this as non-read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds the specific behavioral restriction that only the admin status can be changed. This gives the agent clear expectations about what the tool can and cannot do.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose and immediately clarifying the constraint. No wasted words.

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 simple two-parameter tool with good annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, scope, and parameters. Nothing critical is missing.

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 already provides full descriptions for both parameters (id as 'User UUID', isAdmin as 'Grant or revoke admin rights'), and the description adds little beyond restating the admin status limitation. The description does reinforce the relationship between the two parameters, but schema coverage is already complete.

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 tool updates a user and explicitly limits its scope to changing admin status. This distinguishes it from other update tools like yougile_update_column and from user retrieval/invitation/deletion tools.

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 phrase 'Only supports changing admin status' clearly indicates when this tool should be used, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. Since it's the only user update tool in the sibling set, the use case is unambiguous.

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