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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false. The description adds meaningful non-obvious behavior: patch semantics ('Only the fields you pass are changed') and the side effect of archiving on list_influencers visibility. It does not warn about irreversibility or what happens to existing values on archive, which is the main remaining gap for a destructive-hinted tool.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then the archive shortcut, then the patch semantics. No filler and no repetition of schema content.

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?

No output schema exists and the description need not explain returns; it covers the mutation semantics, archiving effect, and id source. Still thin on status enum semantics and consequences of the destructive-hinted operation, but complete enough to invoke correctly.

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 only 25% across 8 params, so the description must compensate: it names the editable profile fields and maps them to schema properties (name, description, persona, visualIdentity, voiceId, brandId). The status enum's non-archive values (draft/building/ready/failed) and how they interact with editing remain undocumented.

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?

Specific verb (edit) plus resource (an influencer's profile fields) with an enumerated field list (name, description, persona, visual identity, voice, brand). It is clearly distinguishable from create_influencer, get_influencer, list_influencers, and the update_influencer_* siblings.

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?

It explicitly names a second use case ('the way to ARCHIVE one: set status='archived'') and states the downstream consequence (archived influencers stop appearing in list_influencers). It does not cover when-not-to-use or pointer to sibling tools for related edits, so it stops short of a 5.

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