update_user

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint: false). The description adds the permission requirement, which is minor. It does not disclose the behavior of partial updates (e.g., whether unspecified fields remain unchanged) or that roles 'replaces existing' (though that is in the schema). No contradiction with 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?

A single sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the primary purpose and includes a critical permission note. Efficient and to the point.

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 tool with 10 parameters, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify whether the update is partial or full replacement, how missing optional fields are handled, or any constraints (e.g., role IDs must be valid). The absence of an output schema increases the need for description to explain response behavior, which is absent.

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%, with each of the 10 parameters described. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Update a user in LogicMonitor'), specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_user, delete_user, and get_user by naming the exact operation.

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 only usage hint is 'requires write permission', which is a prerequisite, not guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention when to use update_user vs create_user or get_user, nor any conditions or exclusions.

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