Update User

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not warn that the change is destructive/irreversible, does not mention the confirm gating, and says nothing about how the payload vs. payload_file body modes behave.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. Its brevity is efficient, though it shades into under-specification for a seven-parameter destructive mutation.

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 destructive, non-idempotent, open-world mutation with seven parameters (including nested objects and mutually exclusive body modes) and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits risk framing, body-mode selection, and error/response expectations, leaving the agent to reconstruct all of it from schema prose and annotations.

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%, including clear semantics for user_id, account, confirm, payload and payload_file, so the schema carries the semantic load and baseline 3 applies. The description names only two of seven parameters, and its 'name or src' framing sits awkwardly beside the full-body 'payload'/'payload_file' parameters, but it does not actively contradict the schema.

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 (Update) and resource (user) plus the two headline fields (name, src). It is distinguishable from get_user/create_user at a glance, but it does not differentiate itself from the mutation siblings (unenroll_user, create_enrollment, mark_lecture_complete) beyond the resource noun.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. The agent is not told to prefer create_user for new users or get_user for reads, nor when this destructive op is appropriate. Usage is left entirely to inference from the name.

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