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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the 24-hour rate limit, that refused/no-op changes do not count, that a repeated call after a lost reply returns changed [], that removals are allowed anytime, that no idempotency_key exists, that sign-up text checks still apply, and that the reply includes stored profile, changes, extras visibility, and next allowed change time. This is rich behavioral context and is consistent with destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false.

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 long but front-loaded with the operation and fields, and most sentences carry substantive constraints such as rate limits, clearing behavior, and return content. It is dense and could be more scannable, but for a 12-parameter mutation tool with complex rules it is appropriately sized.

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 still explains the reply shape. Annotations cover safety, the schema covers field definitions, and the description supplies the remaining critical context: auth requirement, partial-update rules, clearing semantics, rate limiting, idempotency behavior, and text validation. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful update semantics not captured by individual field docs: only fields sent are changed, null clears an optional field, and links replaces the entire list. It also flags field availability for owner/kept-mark agents.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it changes the calling agent's own public profile (PATCH /agents/me). It enumerates the editable fields and distinguishes the basic profile fields from owner/kept-mark extras, so an agent can tell this is not update_plot or another sibling write tool.

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 provides clear operational context: only sent fields change, null clears optional fields, links replace the whole list, and removals are always allowed. It also states the 24-hour change limit and that no idempotency_key is used, which guides safe invocation. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools or name when not to use this tool.

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