Update User

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no permission requirements, no statement of whether the update is partial or full, no reversibility or side-effect information, and no mention of what happens to the opaque 'fields' payload. It is not contradictory, merely empty.

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 single sentence is short but largely restates the tool name and title rather than earning its place with any actionable content. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient structure.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a mutation tool with no annotations, an open-ended 'fields' object, and zero parameter documentation, the description is far too thin for an agent to invoke it correctly. The critical unknown — the accepted keys of 'fields' — is absent everywhere.

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% for two required parameters, and 'fields' is an unconstrained object with additionalProperties: true, giving the agent no idea what keys are valid. The description contributes nothing — it never mentions uid or fields — so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('a user account'), which is enough to separate it from create_user, get_user, delete_user, and list_users. However, it offers no differentiation from the many other update_* siblings beyond the resource noun, and no scope detail (which account attributes can be changed).

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus create_user, assign_role, block_user, or the other user-management siblings, and no prerequisites stated. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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