vk_post_user_826daa0281a6

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that authentication is required, that it is a raw proxy, and mentions alias handling. It does not detail side effects or response format, but the action and auth requirement are clearly stated.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, but it contains slight redundancy between 'Update email address' and 'Lets the current user change their email address,' plus generic proxy boilerplate that adds length without much unique value.

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 simple one-parameter tool, it covers purpose, auth, and body passing, but the misleading 'optional' and phantom path/query parameters create a completeness gap. With no output schema, return-value details are not required, but accurate invocation guidance is essential and partially flawed.

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?

The schema already describes the 'body' parameter at 100% coverage, but the description actively misleads by calling the body field 'optional' when it is required, and by referencing path/query parameters that do not exist in the schema. This could cause incorrect invocation, outweighing any value from alias notes.

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 verb and resource ('Update email address') and elaborates with 'Lets the current user change their email address.' This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling user-related tools by focusing on the email-specific operation and the exact REST endpoint.

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?

It clearly implies when to use: when the current user needs to change their email address. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases, so it stops short of a full 5.

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