update_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While '[Requires Login]' indicates authentication requirements, the description doesn't address whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are needed, whether changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified settings, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 extremely concise at just two phrases: '[Requires Login] Update user settings'. It's front-loaded with the authentication requirement and states the core purpose efficiently. There's no wasted language, though it could be argued it's too brief given the tool's complexity.

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 complex mutation tool with 1 parameter containing 13 required nested properties, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens when the tool is invoked, what success/failure looks like, or provide any context about the extensive settings being modified. The description fails to compensate for the lack of structured metadata about this significant operation.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for all parameters and nested objects. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description, which applies here.

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 the tool's purpose as 'Update user settings', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_list_entry' or specify what kind of user settings are updated beyond the generic term. The description is adequate but lacks specificity about the scope of settings being modified.

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 includes '[Requires Login]' which provides some context about prerequisites, but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when this tool should be used instead of other update tools like 'update_list_entry', nor any indication of what constitutes appropriate user settings updates versus other operations.

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