wetrack_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 says 'Update' implying mutation, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether setting role to null clears it, whether designation constraint applies to all updates, or whether partial updates are supported). No mention of response format or error handling.

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, a single sentence plus a parameter list. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and each parameter is presented as a bulleted list, making it easy to scan. No fluff.

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?

There is an output schema, but the description does not explain what the tool returns. With 5 parameters and no annotations, the description lacks essential details: whether the update is partial or full, whether user_id must be a valid existing user, and any required permissions. This is a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, so more context is needed.

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%, meaning the description must compensate for the schema's lack of field explanations. However, the description merely lists parameter names without adding semantics beyond obvious meanings. For example, 'first_name' and 'last_name' are self-explanatory, but there is no explanation of the role's allowed values (only a list without context) and no note on which fields are optional or how null values are treated.

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?

Description states 'Update a user's profile fields,' which clearly indicates the purpose. It lists specific fields and their constraints (e.g., role values, designation non-empty), distinguishing it from 'wetrack_create_user' and 'wetrack_get_user' in context.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not specify prerequisites such as whether the user must exist, whether update requires permissions, or when to use create_user instead. This is a gap for a mutation tool.

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