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

Beyond the annotations it discloses two behaviors that matter and are not in structured data: the write is a partial/patch-style update ('send only what changes') and it requires human confirmation before persisting. It doesn't cover what a slug change does to existing public links, or what happens if everything is omitted — gaps for an openWorldHint mutation, but the added behavioral context is real.

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, purpose front-loaded, followed by the two operational rules. No filler; the field enumeration is dense but each item maps to a real capability.

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 14-parameter, zero-required mutation with no output schema and only 21% schema coverage, the description is directionally right but leaves an agent guessing about the undocumented half of the parameters and about the absence of required fields. It's the minimum viable for this complexity, not fully complete.

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 21%, so the description needs to carry more weight, and it groups only some fields (name, bio, contacts, link, lead form, trial booking). Several parameters — modality, slug, is_discoverable, public_page_active, show_student_count — have no meaning in either the schema or the description. Partial compensation, not full.

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 ('Changes') plus the exact resource ('the trainer's public page') and enumerates the editable field groups (name, bio, contacts, link, lead form, trial booking). The distinction from get_public_profile / get_public_profile_stats is implied by 'Changes' rather than stated, so it stops just short of a 5.

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?

'Show the text to the person before saving' and 'Send only what changes' give concrete operating conditions for when and how to call it. It does not name a sibling alternative or state when not to use it, so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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