cached_users_update

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 only notes that the user's ID must be included, but does not reveal whether the update is partial or full, what happens for nonexistent IDs, or any side effects or permissions required.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundancy, and it front-loads the required-ID constraint. It is efficient, though it is arguably under-specified rather than elegantly complete.

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 definition is incomplete for a 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations or output schema. It omits partial-update semantics, return behavior, error handling, and prerequisites, leaving significant gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.

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 explains the id requirement. The email, username, and displayName parameters remain completely undocumented in both the schema and the description, so the agent has to guess their formats or constraints.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Update a cached user.' It is specific enough to distinguish from non-cached user tools like consumers_update, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling cached_users operations such as add or delete.

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 is given on when to use this tool instead of cached_users_add, cached_users_delete, or consumers_update. It does not mention that the user must already exist, whether this is appropriate for partial updates, or any context where another tool should be preferred.

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