gc_update_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool modifies fields and offers a dry run option, but does not mention side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or what happens on conflict. The constraint about email is useful but minimal.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The most important information (verb, fields, constraint) is front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It explains the main action and dryRun, but does not mention return values, idempotency, or error behavior. It covers the immediate need but leaves gaps for a complex tool.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping the modifiable fields and explaining that email is the identifier (not modifiable), and clarifying the dryRun parameter's purpose. This goes beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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 verb 'change' and the resource 'profile fields on the card', listing the specific fields. It also notes that email is out of scope, which helps clarify purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, but the context makes it clear.

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 implies usage for updating user profile fields and mentions dryRun for testing without saving, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions beyond email.

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