update_home_users_restricted_by_user_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the basic safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as required permissions, side effects, or which fields are updatable; it only restates the action, providing no value beyond the annotations.

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 short and to the point, with the action front-loaded before the endpoint and argument. There is no fluff or redundancy, and it is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool, though it is arguably too terse.

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?

Although the tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema exists, the description leaves a critical gap: it does not explain what a 'restricted user' is or when to use this tool over the nearly identical 'update_home_users_by_user_id'. An agent cannot confidently decide to invoke it correctly without that context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only says 'user_id: The unique identifier of the user', which is a minimal clarification of the parameter's role but does not explain any constraints, the meaning of 'restricted' in this context, or how this ID relates to the operation. For a single-parameter tool, this is barely adequate.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Update Restricted User' with the PUT endpoint. It is not a tautology and is unambiguous about the action, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'update_home_users_by_user_id' beyond the word 'restricted' in the tool name, relying on the name rather than the description to distinguish.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the closely related 'update_home_users_by_user_id' or explain what distinguishes a 'restricted' user from a regular home user, nor does it give any criteria for selecting this tool.

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