conduyt_update_user

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses two real constraints: self-role edits are blocked, and status is out of scope here. It does not state auth requirements or whether partial updates/omitted fields are preserved, which is a notable gap for a 13-param mutation tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the two constraints an agent could trip over. No filler.

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 a 13-param mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the critical traps (self-role escalation, status change) are called out. Missing is any statement about required permissions beyond the per-field owner/admin notes, or what the tool returns.

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% and includes enum values, uniqueness notes, null-clearing semantics, and owner/admin gating on custom fields, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only groups fields loosely ('profile, role, permissions') without adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (update) and resource (team member) plus the exact field categories touched (profile, role, permissions). It is unambiguously distinct from sibling mutation tools like conduyt_update_contact or conduyt_update_deal.

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?

Explicitly routes status changes to conduyt_deactivate_user / conduyt_reactivate_user and names them as alternatives, plus an exclusion ('cannot modify your own role'). Both the when-to-use and when-not-to-use cases are covered.

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