patch_users_by_id

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the PATCH verb and the requirement to consult GET/schema for accepted fields, but it does not disclose partial-update semantics, response behavior, or authorization needs beyond that.

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 compact and front-loaded: action, endpoint, then parameter guidance. Minor redundancy with the schema's own parameter labels prevents a 5.

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 dynamic-body PATCH with an output schema and annotations already covering safety, the description supplies the essential missing piece: how to discover the body contract via GET or /schema. It lacks explicit partial-update semantics and id format, but those are reasonably inferable from the PATCH method and referenced schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by labeling id as a path parameter and body as the request payload whose fields must be discovered via GET or /schema. It still does not specify the id format or any concrete body fields, so the compensation is incomplete.

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+resource ('Update api users') and gives the exact PATCH path, making it distinguishable from sibling patch_* tools like patch_users_by_id_openid_unlink by targeting the core user record. It stops short of a 5 because it does not elaborate which aspects of a user can be updated.

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 implies usage whenever an api user needs updating and provides useful prerequisite guidance to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint first. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as create_users, delete_users_by_id, or patch_users_by_id_openid_unlink, so exclusions are absent.

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