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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: changes are applied asynchronously by the operations team so the response returns pending:true and the live profile updates on a later sync, plus username/display-name change cooldowns (30/7 days) with a 409 carrying days remaining, and that the operation is free. This is exactly the rich context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads the core action in the first clause, then layers preconditions, async behavior, and cooldowns in dense sentences with no filler. Every sentence carries an actionable fact an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the pending:true response shape, the async sync delay, and the 409 error path. Combined with the active-account precondition, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter's meaning, character limits, and cooldowns. The description echoes the char limits and cooldowns but adds no new syntax or format detail, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (Edit) and resource (managed account's public profile) and enumerates the editable fields (username, display name, bio). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_managed_account, list_managed_accounts, and publish_to_managed_account without opening any schema.

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?

Provides a clear precondition — editing only unlocks once the account is active — which tells the agent when the call is valid. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to choose another sibling over this one, so it stops short of the 5-level guidance.

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