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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context — that this is a merge/partial update rather than a full replace — but says nothing about permission requirements, validation failures, or whether omitted fields are preserved versus cleared.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the operation is stated before the optionality rule. Nothing redundant or padded.

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?

A 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations describing mutation scope. The description covers the essentials (what it touches, partial-update semantics) but leaves unaddressed whether this is additive, whether the caller must own the profile, and how failures surface.

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% across all 9 properties, so every field is already documented in the schema (timezone, websiteUrl, businessGoal, etc.). The description adds no field-level meaning, syntax, or format guidance beyond that. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does all the work.

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?

Clear specific verb+resource: 'Update the user's business profile information.' An agent can tell it apart from read-side siblings like get_account_info or get_brand_identity. However, it never distinguishes itself from adjacent write tools such as set_brand_identity or update_business_emails, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 partial-update rule ('only provided fields will be updated') implies how to call it, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when to prefer set_brand_identity, update_content_rules, or other profile-adjacent writers. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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