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

Goes well past the annotations: discloses the auth model (browser login, not API key), the read-modify-write implementation detail about whole-set storage, and the destructive semantics of replace=true wiping everything unlisted. That matches destructiveHint=true without contradicting it and adds the 'why' an agent needs.

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 most decision-relevant facts (auth, add-vs-replace) before details. Slightly long, and the '5 accounts out of 273' statistic is a tangent, though it does justify the tags exclusion in one clause.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with an output schema and rich annotations, everything an agent needs is present: auth requirements, id discovery, add/remove/replace semantics, and the deliberate omission of tags. No key unknown is left for the agent to guess.

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% and the schema already says replace treats add_* lists as the complete profile, so the marginal value comes from the worked example (`add_entity_ids=[1635]` keeps the rest) and the explicit 'this adds and removes; it does not replace' framing. It does not map individual remove_* parameters, but the add/remove symmetry is obvious.

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 and resource ('Changes the signed-in person's data... interest profile') and enumerates exactly what is mutated: entities, commissions and sectors. It also anchors the effect to a concrete observable ('what dapper://me reports and what personalises calls made without filters'), so an agent knows the blast radius.

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?

Explicit when-to-use rules: pass only what changes, use add_entity_ids to add one and keep the rest, and use replace=true only when explicitly requested. It also routes the agent to the right id sources (list_entities, list_commissions) and states why tags are not editable here, closing off a plausible wrong path.

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