Update a user

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real behavioral context on top: the admin grant's blast radius ("full control of the instance, including every secret of every repository") and the partial-update contract ("Fields you do not pass are preserved"). The schema, not the description, carries the confirm_token prerequisite for granting admin, so this falls just short of 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the access restriction before the high-stakes warning. Each sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the title or schema.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description only needs to add risk and semantics — which it does for the admin grant and partial-update behavior. It never states what the remaining updatable fields are, but the schema enumerates them, so nothing essential 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?

With 80% schema description coverage the baseline is 3, and the description earns an extra point by prioritizing the "admin" parameter and explaining the consequence of setting it. It adds no syntax detail for email, login, or confirm_token beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

"Changes an account" states a clear verb and resource, and the focus on the "admin" field makes the tool's most consequential purpose obvious. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like update_secret or update_agent beyond the resource name, but there is no ambiguity about what is being modified.

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?

"Admin only" gives a genuine precondition for use, which is more than nothing. However, it offers no when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and does not route the agent to alternatives such as create_user or delete_user, leaving the choice context implicit.

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