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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false) by disclosing the auth scope, that the first call mutates nothing, that validation is done against the shape of the change and rejects unknown field names, and that the response carries a summary plus confirm_token. This is exactly the extra context an agent needs to avoid an accidental destructive write.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the auth requirement, then the two-phase flow in execution order. No filler and nothing redundant.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the safety-critical protocol, auth requirement, and response shape of the first call. The one omission is a hint at which profile fields are settable (or that this tool covers the general profile fields that the discrete set_* siblings do not), which matters given additionalProperties: true.

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 description for confirm_token already says to omit it on the first call, so the description's explanation of the same parameter is largely reinforcing rather than additive. The real semantic gap is that the actual profile fields live in additionalProperties and are never enumerated in either the schema or the description.

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 ("Change my profile") plus the required scope `profile:write`, so the agent knows it is a self-profile mutation. It does not distinguish itself from the many profile-mutating siblings in the same family (set_avatar, set_cover, set_profile_tags, set_service_areas, set_vocabulary), nor does it say what fields it accepts, which the schema leaves open via additionalProperties.

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?

The when-to-use protocol is unusually explicit: call once to validate, show the returned summary to the person, and only re-call after they agree with the same arguments plus confirm_token. What is missing is routing guidance against the discrete siblings that set individual profile attributes.

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