update_user

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. While annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, the description clarifies that this is an 'admin action' and specifies authentication requirements ('Requires Application API key'). It doesn't fully describe rate limits or error behaviors, but provides important operational context not captured in annotations.

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 perfectly concise with three sentences that each serve distinct purposes: stating the tool's function, providing usage guidance, and specifying authentication requirements. There's no wasted language, and the most critical information appears first.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description provides strong context about prerequisites, authentication, and admin requirements. It doesn't describe the return format or error conditions, but given the comprehensive parameter documentation in the schema and the behavioral context provided, it's mostly complete for agent usage.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description mentions the same parameters ('username, email, password, or admin status') but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Update an existing user account's details') and identifies the exact resources that can be modified ('username, email, password, or admin status'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'create_user' and 'get_user' by specifying it's for updating existing users rather than creating new ones or retrieving information.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Use list_users or get_user to find the user ID first') and identifies specific alternative tools for those prerequisite steps. It also specifies a key constraint ('admin action') that indicates when this tool should be used versus when it might not be appropriate.

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