grocy_users_update

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true and openWorld=true, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds the non-obvious dry-run gate via confirm, which is genuinely useful behavioral context. It stops short of saying whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, and says nothing about auth requirements.

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?

Three short fragments with zero filler: purpose, endpoint, then the one non-obvious invocation rule. The scoping information is front-loaded before the dry-run caveat.

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 7-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers identity and the dry-run mechanism but leaves the actual update semantics ambiguous — an agent cannot tell from this whether sending only username wipes the other fields. Annotations do relieve it of the safety burden, so it is adequate rather than broken.

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 only 43%, so the description needs to carry weight, but it only restates the confirm dry-run rule that the schema already spells out in full. The four undocumented parameters (password, first_name, last_name, picture_file_name) get no explanation of whether they are optional, whether omitting one clears existing data, or what password rules apply. Only the username requirement is documented, and that is in 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?

"Edit a Grocy user" gives a specific verb and resource, and the PUT endpoint literal pins down that it is a full-object update rather than a patch. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the grocy_users_create/delete/list siblings through the word "Edit", though it never names them explicitly.

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?

"Omit confirm for a dry-run" tells the agent the preview path, which is real usage guidance for the write itself. However there is no guidance on when to choose this over grocy_objects_update, grocy_users_create, or grocy_user_settings, and no prerequisites such as required permissions are stated.

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