user_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it falls short. It states the update nature and that updated user information is returned, but does not mention required permissions to perform the update, what happens when the user_id doesn't exist, whether partial updates are allowed (e.g., only acls set, api_enabled null), or whether changes are reversible. For a mutation tool, this is a meaningful gap.

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 structure is clean: a one-line purpose, an Args block, and a Returns block. The permission list is long but justified since it carries essential semantic value. Minimal filler; every element earns its place.

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 mutation tool with three parameters and no annotations, it covers the parameters and return value well, but omits prerequisites (admin/role requirements), error behavior for nonexistent users, and the effect of supplying only one of the two optional fields. The existing output schema covers return structure, so that's acceptable; the remaining gaps concern operational 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 do all the work — and it does exceptionally well. It explains user_id accepts a UUID or email, api_enabled toggles API access, and the acls parameter includes a full enumeration of 13 permissions with the meaning of each. This far exceeds what the bare schema (just 'string' items, no enums) provides.

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 opens with a specific and unambiguous statement — 'Update an existing user's settings' — pairing a clear verb with the resource and its scope. It differentiates from siblings like user_create and user_delete by the operation type, though it doesn't explicitly name any sibling to contrast against.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like user_setup_standard_user, user_setup_service_user, and user_list_available_permissions in close proximity, an agent has no help deciding which path to take for a given task. The only contextual hint is the 'ctx' argument for resource change notifications, which is not usage guidance.

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