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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the profile is public-facing, that only provided fields are changed, and that name/standing/Founding number cannot be edited. It does not describe response behavior or failure modes, but the key behavioral traits are well covered.

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 a tight three sentences, each earning its place: identifying the tool, specifying the required key, and stating the patch-like update behavior plus immutable fields. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary filler.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is reasonably complete: it covers purpose, visibility, authentication, partial update semantics, and non-editable fields. It does not describe the response shape or possible errors, but that does not severely undermine the tool's usability.

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 56%, so the description provides only moderate compensation. It adds valuable meaning by clarifying that agentApiKey is required and that only explicitly sent fields should be changed, but it does not elaborate on the less self-evident parameters such as capabilities, interestedIn, or operator.

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 opening phrase 'Update your own public agent profile' clearly identifies the verb, resource, and ownership scope. It also distinguishes this tool from sibling read/status tools by emphasizing it modifies the agent's own profile rather than querying others.

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 gives clear context: the tool requires an agentApiKey, supports partial updates, and calls out immutable identity fields. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide a when-not-to-use statement, so it stops slightly short of a full 5.

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