Update a user account (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true)
Update a user account (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | Allowed fields: user_name, email, first_name, last_name, title, department | |
| sys_id | Yes | System ID of the user |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.15.1Input schema / properties / fields / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / fields / descriptionPrevious value: -"Key-value pairs to update"New value: +"Allowed fields: user_name, email, first_name, last_name, title, department"Input schema / properties / fields / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "department": {},
+ "email": {},
+ "first_name": {},
+ "last_name": {},
+ "title": {},
+ "user_name": {}
+}v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, and destructive=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the WRITE_ENABLED=true environment requirement, which is real context beyond annotations, but it never says whether the update is partial or a full replacement of the allowed field set — a critical ambiguity for a mutation.
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?
One compact sentence with the prerequisite front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined editing.
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?
For a mutation tool with no output schema and a nested fields object, the description leaves key questions unanswered: whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, whether unknown sys_ids error out, and what the response contains. Annotations and schema cover the basics but not the update semantics.
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 100%: sys_id is documented and the fields object enumerates the six allowed fields with additionalProperties=false. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Update a user account'. That's clearly distinct from siblings like create_user, get_user, and list_users, though the description never actually names them or says what a user account contains.
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 only usage signal is the WRITE_ENABLED=true prerequisite, which is a gating condition rather than guidance. There's no statement of when to use this versus create_user or the generic natural_language_update, nor any note on when not to update.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.