users_update

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

Discloses important behaviors: partial update ('Only provided fields'), uniqueness constraint on email, and restriction on admin status. However, it does not mention the return value (e.g., the updated user object) or error handling, and no output schema is provided. Annotations are absent, so the descriptions carries this burden well but not completely.

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?

Well-structured with a brief summary, followed by 'Workflow tips' and 'Common use cases'. Each sentence adds value, no redundancy. Front-loaded with essential 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?

Despite no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, parameters, usage guidelines, and behavioral constraints. Missing is the return value/response format and potential errors, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value through workflow tips and examples showing how parameters are used (e.g., 'Update user name: {"id": 123, "name": "John Smith"}'). It clarifies the partial update behavior and the uniqueness constraint on email.

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 action ('Updates information for an existing user') and the resource ('user'), with specific examples of fields like name, email, and active_flag. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'users_create' and 'users_get' by focusing on existing users and partial updates.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Requires admin permissions', 'Only provided fields will be updated', 'Use users/get to retrieve current values first', 'Email must remain unique if changed', and 'Cannot update own admin status'. It also gives common use cases with example payloads.

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