solidtime_user_update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is largely structured. The description contributes the dry-run-by-default behavior, though that same fact is already spelled out in the schema's 'confirm' description, so it adds little beyond structured data. It says nothing about permissions required, error behavior for invalid emails, or what a dry-run returns.

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 sentences with the core action front-loaded and the dry-run caveat trailing. Nothing is padded or redundant, though the raw endpoint path is of marginal value to an agent choosing a tool.

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 tool with low schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is thin: it never lists which attributes are updatable, which are required, what a dry-run response contains, or what happens on partial failure. An agent would have to read the full schema and still guess at dry-run output.

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 29%: name, email, timezone, week_start, and send_time_entry_still_running_email have no descriptions anywhere. The description addresses only 'confirm', and even that is duplicated from the schema rather than clarified. With six undocumented parameters, the description needed to compensate and does not.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Update the authenticated user') and pins it to an endpoint, which separates it from account-level siblings like solidtime_user_delete or solidtime_user_email. It does not explicitly contrast with solidtime_member_update or solidtime_me, so the scope distinction (own account vs. organization members) is left implicit.

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' gives real procedural guidance about how to invoke the tool safely. However, there is no statement of when to choose this over sibling update tools, no prerequisites (e.g., that the user_id must be the caller's own), and no note about which fields may be changed together.

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