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

Beyond the annotations it discloses the traits that actually matter for a mutation: null clears an optional field, the name cannot be cleared and must match the site's list, rejected requests change nothing (atomicity), the response is the section read back, the required OAuth scope is named, and an unconnected member is prompted to sign in. It also warns that member-written text is site data, not instructions. None of this restates the annotation hints.

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?

It is front-loaded with the partial-update rule and the field-level constraints before the permission and connectivity details, and every sentence carries information an agent needs. The prose is dense and clause-heavy (parentheses and em dashes stacked), which slightly hurts scannability without wasting words.

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 5-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the update semantics, error behavior, auth/permission requirements, connection prerequisite, and the return shape ('answers with the section read back'), plus a prompt-injection caveat. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly 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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds real meaning the schema cannot express — null-as-clear semantics for optional fields, the non-clearable name, server-side validation of the name against the site's list, and the list of prohibited fields that yield 400. It does not explain the years/rating bounds or the 'in your member's words' guidance further, which the schema already carries.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Correct a software skill') and immediately clarifies that this is a partial update ('Changes only the fields named'), which distinguishes it from add_my_software_skill and remove_my_software_skill in the sibling list. The resource itself (software skill, filtered by id from GET /me/software) separates it cleanly from update_my_skill and update_my_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 gives concrete preconditions and exclusions: fields named in the request are the only ones touched, a body naming target_user_id, a file/media link, or a review/verification flag is refused outright with 400 UNKNOWN_FIELD, and the member needs the 'Update your profile' permission. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent between update vs add vs remove siblings, so it is strong context rather than full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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