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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the backend re-checks discoverability on every profile write while is_discoverable is on, exposes the exact rejection message, and clarifies that name changes are exempt. These are non-obvious behavioral traits that materially affect how an agent should handle failures.

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 core action and field list are front-loaded, followed by a dense but purposeful block explaining discoverability and error handling. The discoverability sentence is long, but every clause contributes critical usage information, so there is no wasted text.

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 covers what an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly and recover from failures. It omits the success response shape, but that is a minor gap for an update operation whose main complexity is already thoroughly explained.

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?

The schema covers 67% of parameters, and the description adds meaning for the less-documented ones: it explains is_discoverable's dependency on social links, the contact_email field, and that first_name is 'the name brands see'. However, some schema descriptions remain thin and the description doesn't fully compensate for all gaps.

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 ('Update the public profile') and enumerates all updatable fields. It also distinguishes this tool from related siblings by exempting name changes (handled by a separate account endpoint) and pointing to split_add_social_link for social-link additions.

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 gives explicit when-to-use context for profile fields and prescribes an error-recovery strategy: on a reject, either add the missing social link via split_add_social_link or set is_discoverable:false in the same call. It also tells the agent when NOT to use this tool by routing name changes to the account's own name endpoint.

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