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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses PATCH semantics (only provided fields change) and privilege restrictions. However, it does not describe the return value or error behavior, which would improve transparency.

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?

Five concise sentences deliver all necessary information without redundancy. Each sentence serves a purpose: listing fields, explaining PATCH semantics, excluding role changes, clarifying organization context, and stating privilege constraints.

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 tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral traits, and parameter constraints. A mention of the return value (e.g., updated profile object) would enhance completeness, but it's not critical.

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 coverage is 100% (all 7 parameters described), setting a baseline of 3. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining PATCH semantics (partial update), clarifying the org_user_id's fixed organization context, and mentioning the idempotency key's purpose.

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 specifies the verb (Update), the resource (team member's organization-profile), and lists the specific fields (first name, last name, country, timezone, job title). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'change_user_role' by explicitly stating that role changes are not supported.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (update profile fields) and when not to (role changes), directing to the dedicated role-change tool. It also provides critical usage constraints: the organization is fixed (never pass an org id) and you cannot target a more privileged user.

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