update_user

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

Annotations already indicate it is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that it returns the updated User resource, which is not in annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the emoji, method, and resource path. There is minor redundancy ('Update a user' and 'Updates user information'), but overall it is efficient and avoids unnecessary detail.

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 description is minimal for a complex tool with many nested parameters. It does not clarify whether the update is partial or full replacement, nor does it mention validation or idempotency beyond annotations. However, the schema and annotations cover many aspects.

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 the schema already documents both parameters (id and body) and their nested properties. The description does not add any additional meaning or usage tips for parameters beyond what is in the schema.

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 'Update a user' and 'Updates user information', indicating the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling update tools like update_user_group or update_seat_offering, beyond the name.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as create_user for new users or other update tools. No context about prerequisites or typical use cases is given.

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