ghl_user_update

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) already convey key traits. The description adds OAuth scopes and the known issue that the tool is currently broken due to a missing userId field, which is useful but does not elaborate on other behaviors like partial updates or side effects.

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 front-loaded with a detailed known issue, which is important but verbose. The rest is concise with endpoint and scopes. It could be more structured (e.g., separate sections for usage and caveats).

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?

Given the complexity of the tool (many nested parameters, no output schema), the description lacks overall context. It does not summarize what can be updated, update semantics (e.g., partial vs full replacement), or expected response, leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone.

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 input schema covers all parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description itself does not add any parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline expectation.

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 'Update User' and provides the PUT endpoint, making the tool's purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ghl_user_create or ghl_user_delete, though the verb 'Update' implies it is for modifying existing 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ghl_user_create for new users, ghl_user_delete for removal). There is no mention of prerequisites or context such as the user must exist.

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