Update a user

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that granting admin grants full instance control including every repository secret, and that omitted fields are preserved. This is exactly the kind of side-effect context an agent needs before invoking a destructive, admin-only mutation.

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?

Three short sentences with the core action first, followed by a prerequisite and the two most important behavioral notes. No fluff or repetition.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the action, restrictions, and critical risk. The confirm_token requirement and parameter meanings are already in the schema, so the context is nearly complete, though it could have listed the updatable fields for even faster agent comprehension.

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 80%, so the schema carries most parameter documentation. The description adds value by highlighting 'admin' as the critical parameter and by stating the partial-update semantics ('Fields you do not pass are preserved'), which is not inferable from the schema alone.

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 a clear action ('Changes an account') on a user resource, which aligns with the tool name and title. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling update tools like update_forge or update_agent, so it misses the top score.

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 gives a prerequisite ('Admin only') and implies partial-update usage via 'Fields you do not pass are preserved,' but it never states when to choose this tool over create_user/get_user/delete_user or other update tools. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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