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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: null clears an optional field, the response reads the section back, and out-of-scope fields (target_user_id, file/media links, review or verification flags) are refused by name with 400 UNKNOWN_FIELD and no partial write. The prompt-injection caution is relevant but generic boilerplate rather than tool-specific behavior.

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-loaded with the action and its mutable fields, then prerequisites, then refusal behavior. Sentences are dense and information-rich, though the parenthetical null rule and the closing injection warning read as appended boilerplate.

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 non-destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: which fields change, how to clear them, what the call returns, what gets rejected, and what permission and connection state are required.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining the null-means-clear semantics for optional fields, which the nullable types in the schema do not convey. Minor friction: it calls the note field 'note' while the schema names it 'about'.

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?

Names a specific verb (correct/change) and enumerates exactly which fields of the member's tool entry are mutable: rating, years, category, note. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling pair add_my_tool/remove_my_tool by stating that changing the tool itself is a remove-plus-add operation.

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?

Gives an explicit when-not-to-use rule ('to change the tool itself, remove it and add the right one') that routes the agent to siblings, plus the prerequisite permission ('Update your profile' / profile:write) and the sign-in precondition if the member has not connected yet.

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