update_user

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining that the endpoint replaces only the sent fields, is idempotent, has auth injected server-side, is throttled and retried on 429/5xx, and returns HTTP status plus the API body. This gives the agent substantial behavioral context for a write operation.

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?

The description is well structured with clear labeled sections: Behavior, Parameters, Returns, and Use when. It front-loads the critical endpoint and write indication, and every section adds value without wasting words.

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?

The definition is complete for a tool with no output schema: it explains what the response looks like, how errors and non-2xx statuses surface, and the operational constraints such as auth, rate limits, and retries. It also covers the main usage workflow and related tools.

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 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds useful semantics by clarifying that the entire JSON payload goes in the single body argument and is forwarded verbatim, including the important gotcha that the spec marks body optional but this endpoint expects one.

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 'Updates user information' alongside the endpoint 'PUT /v2/users/{id}', giving a specific verb, resource, and action. It differentiates from siblings by defining the behavior as replacing fields on an existing record and explicitly mentioning the create tool as the alternative when the record does not yet exist.

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?

The 'Use when' section explicitly says to use this only when the user asked to change an existing record, and advises reading the record first to avoid overwriting unintended fields. It also names the create tool as the alternative for non-existing records, which is clear routing guidance.

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