pm_update_user

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the HTTP method (PATCH), partial update nature, and auth requirement. However, it does not describe the response format, error handling, or side effects, leaving behavioral gaps.

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 a single sentence with a clear list, no redundancy. All information is front-loaded and every word contributes to understanding.

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?

The description covers the core operation and auth but omits what the output schema provides (response format). Given the nested payload and auth requirement, it is adequate but could mention the return value and constraints.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It effectively lists the updatable fields for the payload object and mentions the X-User-Id parameter. While it lacks type details, it provides essential context missing from the schema.

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 it performs a PATCH partial update on a user resource, listing specific fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pm_create_user and pm_delete_user.

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 explicitly mentions the authentication requirement (X-User-Id from self or admin), providing clear context for when the tool is usable. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the sibling tools cover other operations.

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