aap_update_user

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the HTTP method (PATCH) and a note that it returns JSON with updated user id and username, which is useful but does not disclose permissions, error handling, or idempotency behavior.

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: one sentence for purpose, then Args/Returns sections with minimal, clear text. No filler or redundant information, and the key action is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the essential purpose and return format, and an output schema exists. However, it does not elaborate on field semantics, constraints, or edge cases, leaving the agent to infer details from the input schema. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, and the description only says 'Fields to update' without listing or explaining the individual parameters. The schema itself lacks descriptions for most fields, so the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter semantics.

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 tool updates an existing AAP user via PATCH, specifying the verb, resource, and method. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like aap_create_user, aap_get_user, and aap_delete_user.

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 phrase 'existing AAP user' implies this is for modifying already-created users, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like aap_create_user or aap_get_user. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.

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