remnawave_update_user

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, etc. The description adds 'Only provided fields will be changed', which clarifies patch semantics. However, it does not elaborate on side effects, error conditions, or security requirements beyond what annotations imply.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that immediately convey purpose and key usage constraint. Every word adds value with no unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Despite 12 updatable fields, the description only mentions identification and partial update behavior. It omits typical update concerns like confirmation of changes, error cases, or response details. However, the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, making this minimally complete.

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 input schema already includes descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'Tag (empty string to clear)'), so the tool description adds no additional meaning. With schema description coverage effectively high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update an existing user', specifying the verb (update) and resource (user). It also distinguishes from creation tools like remnawave_create_user by emphasizing 'existing user', and from sibling update tools by resource name.

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 mentions identification via 'UUID (preferred) or username' and partial update behavior, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_host or update_node. There is no guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites.

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