update_user

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals key behavior: company_ids REPLACES the list (destructive). It also implies other fields are individually updated. However, it could mention idempotency or other side effects. Still, it provides significant transparency.

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 very concise: two sentences plus parameter explanations. Every part adds value with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose, making it easy to scan.

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 tool has 7 parameters and an output schema. The description covers key behavioral aspects (null handling, replacement behavior) but does not detail all parameters' semantics. The output schema reduces the need for return value explanation, so this is reasonably 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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the user_id format ('USR... id') and the replacement behavior for company_ids. For other parameters (role, email, etc.), no additional info is given beyond schema defaults. Given 0% schema coverage, this partial compensation earns a 4.

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 verb (update) and the resource (user fields) with the instruction 'Pass None to leave unchanged,' making the purpose immediately apparent. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like create_user, delete_user, and get_user.

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 explicit guidance: 'Update mutable user fields' defines when to use, and the note about company_ids replacing the list with an alternative for additive modifications ('for additive use the CallRail UI') tells when not to use this tool. This aligns with the dimension's criteria.

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