Update a user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the PUT/admin-endpoint context and a deprecation flag, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about what is mutated (password rotation, admin privilege changes) or whether unlisted fields are left untouched.

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 short and the deprecation warning is at the end, but it wastes its opening on a duplicated restatement ('Update a user' followed by 'Update an existing user'), and the most decision-relevant fact (deprecated) is not front-loaded.

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 ten-parameter admin mutation with no output schema, the safety profile is supplied by annotations and the parameter set by the schema, so the basics are covered. Still missing is any statement of required privileges, idempotency semantics from the description itself, or a named successor tool, leaving the deprecation advisory effectively inert.

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 the ten parameters (name, email, isAdmin, password, quotaSizeInBytes, etc.) are already documented at the schema level, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, such as whether this is a partial or full replacement update, beyond what the schema provides.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Update an existing user') and anchors it to an admin endpoint via 'Immich operation: PUT /admin/users/{id} · tag: Users (admin)', which distinguishes it from the non-admin siblings immich_update_my_user and immich_update_user_preferences_admin. However, the first two lines ('Update a user' / 'Update an existing user') are largely a restatement of the title rather than new information.

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 only guidance is 'DEPRECATED — prefer the replacement operation if one exists,' which does not name the replacement sibling, so an agent cannot actually act on it. There is no statement of when to use this vs immich_update_my_user, immich_update_user_preferences_admin, or immich_update_user_onboarding.

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