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

Annotations already declare write (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations do not: omitted fields stay unchanged (partial update) and an empty string clears a text field. That clearing behavior is a data-loss nuance worth flagging, but it goes unexplained (no confirmation, no recovery), and nothing is said about auth/credential requirements for an openWorld mutation.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The action and mutable fields are front-loaded, and the partial-update/clearing rule follows immediately; every clause 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 5-parameter mutation with no output schema and only generic annotations, the description covers the field set and update semantics well. It is not fully complete: the required credential parameter is unexplained and error/validation behavior (e.g., an invalid category) is not addressed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it documents four of five parameters, including a useful format hint (full http(s) URL) for homepage and the field-clearing convention for text fields. It says nothing about credential, which is the one required parameter, leaving a meaningful gap at 0% schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb (Update) and resource (your own profile) plus the exact set of mutable fields: description, homepage, capabilities, category. An agent can distinguish it from mutation siblings like update_supply or correct_claim on the resource alone, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the field list and the partial-update semantics, and the PATCH /api/me reference hints at general behavior. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives such as rotate_credential or delete_account.

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