Update user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description's 'WRITE' label largely restates this and adds only a payload hint; it does not explain mutation effects, permissions, partial-update behavior, or what happens to unspecified settings.

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 two short sentences and front-loads the operation type. It is efficient, though its terseness borders on under-specification rather than being fully optimized.

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 an update tool with a nested, largely unconstrained user payload and no output schema, the description does not provide enough detail about valid fields, whether updates are partial or full, required nested properties, or expected effects.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some meaning beyond the schema by naming accountId and settings to change, but it remains vague about valid setting fields and the nested object is otherwise unconstrained.

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 states a specific verb and resource: updating a user, and explicitly labels it as a WRITE operation. It is clear enough to distinguish the operation from read tools like get_user, though it does not differentiate itself from siblings such as create_user or update_company.

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 only says to pass a user object with accountId and settings to change. There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus create_user or other update tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions.

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