Update user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses nothing: not whether the update is partial or full-replacement, not what permissions are needed, not whether changes are reversible, and not what happens to fields omitted from the nested body object.

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?

It is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness; the single sentence earns nothing and conveys no information beyond the tool's name.

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 a nested body parameter, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate — an agent has nothing to act on beyond the name.

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% and the description adds zero meaning for either parameter. The nested 'body' object with additionalProperties is entirely opaque — no hint of which fields are updatable or their expected shapes — which is a serious gap given the nested structure.

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 restates the tool name and title verbatim ('Update a user') without adding a specific resource scope, field list, or any distinguishing detail from siblings like update_request or update_task. It is a tautology rather than a statement of purpose.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent cannot infer from the description when this tool is appropriate versus get_user or create_user.

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