npm_update_user

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet says nothing about how the update behaves: whether it is a partial/patch update, whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, whether it is idempotent, or what permissions the caller needs. 'Update' is the only signal, and it is the same signal the name already gives.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise — four words cannot cover a six-parameter mutation tool. Size is efficient but the content budget is unspent.

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 tool with six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description omits critical context: partial-update semantics, permission requirements, and the effect of is_disabled or roles changes. The agent has enough to attempt a call but not enough to call it correctly with confidence.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters (user_id, name, email, roles, nickname, is_disabled) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a clear verb+resource (update a user) with a scope qualifier ('existing'), which implicitly separates it from npm_create_user and npm_delete_user. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the overlapping sibling npm_set_user_permissions, nor indicate which user attributes are mutable.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus npm_create_user, npm_delete_user, npm_set_user_permissions, or npm_get_user, and no prerequisites (e.g., needing the user_id from npm_list_users). The agent must infer the routing entirely from the tool name.

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