update_user

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

Without annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: the tool modifies user fields, and company_ids replaces the list rather than adding. It does not discuss side effects or error cases, but the core behavior is well explained.

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, with a clear header and bullet points for args. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded. There is no redundancy.

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 covers the essential behavior for a 7-param update tool. It explains the replacement behavior for company_ids and the 'leave unchanged' pattern. The output schema exists, so return values are not required in the description. Minor gaps like error handling are acceptable.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning for user_id and company_ids. The 'Pass None to leave unchanged' hint applies to all optional fields, which adds semantic value. Other parameters (email, first_name, etc.) rely on schema names and lack further contextualization.

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 mutable user fields', which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes itself from create_user, get_user, and delete_user among siblings.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on handling optional fields ('Pass None to leave unchanged') and explains that company_ids is a replacement operation, directing additive use to the UI. However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus other update tools for related entities.

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