Update a user

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

Beyond the idempotentHint annotation, the description discloses that the groups list is replaced rather than merged, which is a nontrivial behavioral trait. It doesn't mention the confirm_token confirmation flow, but that detail is present in the input schema, so the description plus schema cover the key 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?

Two sentences put the action first and the critical caveat second, with no filler. The wording is compact while carrying necessary behavioral information.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description conveys the main side effect, the primary alternative, and enough overlap with the schema to guide correct invocation. It could spell out the two-call confirmation flow, but that is already encoded in confirm_token's description, making the overall package adequate.

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 57%, so the schema already describes four parameters. The description adds crucial semantics for groups (replaces, not appends) and links the tool to the assign alternative, clarifying behavior for that parameter. Name, location, and job_title are self-explanatory and need no extra prose.

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 states the operation ('changes an account's details or its group membership') with a clear verb and resource, going beyond the title. It doesn't enumerate every mutable field, but it names the core capabilities and flags the group-replacement behavior that distinguishes it from simple assignment 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?

It explicitly points to assign_user_to_group for a single addition, giving the agent a clear decision rule for an important alternative. It doesn't mention other sibling tools like set_user_active or reset_user_password, so the guidance is partial but not misleading.

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