update_authenticated_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'update', which implies mutation, but does not mention authentication requirements (beyond 'authenticated user'), partial vs. full update semantics, rate limits, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 no fluff, and the action is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for a simple update operation. However, it might be too terse, relying entirely on the schema for field details without adding any guiding context, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the response will be, whether the update is partial or full, or any side effects. The description is not sufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 by explaining parameters, but it does not mention any of the 7 fields (bio, blog, name, etc.). The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no value in clarifying their meaning, format, or constraints. This is a critical gap.

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') and the target resource ('the authenticated user's profile'). It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_me (read) and list_emails_for_authenticated_user (read-only operations). The verb+resource structure leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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, nor does it mention prerequisites or context. It does not state that this is for modifying the authenticated user's profile as opposed to other resources. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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