passgage_update_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description alone must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Update an existing user.' It does not mention whether this is a partial or full update, what happens if the user does not exist, required permission levels, or any side effects. The description is entirely uninformative about the tool's runtime behavior.

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 a single, short sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. It contains no filler words or redundant content. While it is very terse, it is appropriately concise for a simple CRUD operation, though it sacrifices substance for brevity.

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 the lack of annotations, output schema, and the open-ended 'data' object, the description is severely incomplete. It provides no context about return values, error behavior, the structure of expected data, or how this operation fits into the broader API. An agent has almost no actionable information beyond the tool's name.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (id and data), giving 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no further parameter meaning. However, the 'data' parameter is an open object with no defined structure, and the description does not compensate for this, which prevents a higher score.

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 ('Update') and the target resource ('an existing user'), which matches the tool name and makes the primary purpose unmistakable. However, it does not provide any differentiation from sibling update tools beyond the resource name, so it lacks the explicit scope and alternative guidance that would earn a 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_user, delete_user, or other update_* tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or situations to avoid, leaving the agent without practical usage context.

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