update_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists updatable fields but does not mention permissions, partial vs. full replacement semantics, side effects on existing settings, or failure modes. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 compact and efficient: one sentence states the operation, followed by concise parameter definitions. Every sentence adds distinct value with no redundancy or filler. The structure is easy to scan and understand.

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 no output schema and a sparse input schema, the description provides the essential context needed to call the tool: how to locate the target (host, site) and what payload fields are relevant. However, it lacks information about update behavior (partial vs. whole replacement), required permissions, and potential side effects, which are important contextual aspects for a mutation tool. It is usable but not fully 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 provides only bare type information (e.g., 'string') with zero description coverage. The description compensates fully by defining each parameter: host accepts console name, ID, or composite MAC:numericId; site accepts name or ID; payload enumerates updatable fields; user_id is marked REQUIRED with a source. This makes parameter usage clear and actionable.

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 action ('Update') and the specific resource ('DHCP/client-alias entry'), and emphasizes identification by ID. This distinguishes it from list/get/delete operations, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools. The verb+resource+scope is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides a critical usage instruction: obtain user_id from `list_users`. It implies when to use the tool (when you need to update a DHCP/client-alias entry) but does not state any exclusions or alternative tools. The guidance is present but only implicit regarding context.

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