avanan_update_msp_user

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

Given no annotations, the description carries the burden. It notes that 'all fields are required', which is a key behavioral trait for an update operation. However, it omits details about error handling, authorization needs, or what happens on success (e.g., returns updated user).

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. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, the 'All fields are required' clause could be a separate sentence for clarity. Overall, no waste.

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?

With 10 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain the return value, error scenarios, or prerequisites like needing an existing user. Completeness is lacking for such a complex tool.

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%, so each parameter is documented. The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond 'all fields are required', which is already implied by the required array. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'MSP user', and specifies it is done 'by ID'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, delete, and get users.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a user already exists, or what prerequisites (e.g., valid user ID) are needed. It only states the operation.

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