user_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool mutates the profile and enforces a partial-update rule ('Provide at least one of'), but it omits details such as required authentication context, what happens when the password changes, or the success/error response shape. For a mutating tool with no annotation support, this is thin.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core action and resource appear first, and the key parameter constraint is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 simple three-parameter update with a complete schema, the essential invocation information is present: what to update, which parameters are allowed, and the minimum-input rule. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the agent receives no guidance on return values, error behavior, or side effects, so completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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%, and each parameter already has a meaningful schema description. The description adds the important 'at least one of' constraint that is not encoded in the schema's required list, which helps prevent no-op calls. It only lists the fields otherwise, but the added constraint gives real value beyond 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?

The description states a specific action ('Update') and a specific resource ('the current user's profile'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that act on clients, units, applications, networks, and devices. It is not a tautology and tells an agent exactly what operation will be performed.

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 intended context is clear: modify the profile of the currently authenticated user, as opposed to user_get (read-only) or the other resource-scoped update tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the narrow scope makes the use case unambiguous.

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