bookstack_users_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool updates user details, implying a mutation, but lacks critical information such as permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields (e.g., if only 'name' is provided, are other fields preserved?). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the required 'id' parameter, but overall it's concise with no wasted words.

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 complexity of a user update tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral aspects like authentication needs, error conditions, or response format, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description lists some updatable fields (name, email, password, role assignments) but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining interactions between parameters or special cases (e.g., 'external_auth_id' for LDAP/SAML). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource ('a user's details'), specifying what fields can be modified (name, email, password, role assignments). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'bookstack_users_create' or 'bookstack_users_read' by focusing on modification, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'bookstack_users_delete' or other update tools in terms of scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing admin permissions), when not to use it (e.g., for bulk updates), or refer to sibling tools like 'bookstack_users_create' for new users or 'bookstack_users_read' for viewing details.

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