update_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that a JSON object with update result is returned, but it does not disclose whether the update is partial (only specified fields), what happens if the user does not exist, permission requirements, or any side effects. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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 a clear heading, Args list, Returns line, and Examples. It is concise—no redundant prose—and every section earns its place. The examples are practical and illustrative without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the tool does not need to explain return structure in deep detail, and it does mention the return type. However, with six parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description should provide more context on error handling, partial update semantics, and valid enumerations. It is a minimum viable description but not fully complete.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It lists all six parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'New email address (optional)'), which adds some value beyond the raw schema. However, it lacks details such as valid role values, format for campaign_access, or constraints, making the semantics only minimally useful.

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 an existing user.' with a specific verb and resource. It lists the fields that can be updated, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_user, delete_user, and get_user. The purpose is unmistakable.

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 phrase 'existing user' implies the tool is for modifying already-created users, providing some implicit guidance. However, there is no explicit mention of when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., create_user for new users, update_campaign for campaigns), nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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