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

Annotations give idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: partial-update semantics ('omitted fields are left unchanged'), the destructive edge case that empty lists clear that list, and the side effect of marking the profile as human-authored. Good value-add; doesn't cover auth or error 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?

Single tight sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, zero filler. Every clause earns its place (partial semantics, clear-list edge case, authorship side effect).

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?

Nine params with 100% schema coverage and no output schema. The description covers the essential non-obvious semantics (partial update, empty-list clearing) that an agent must know to avoid unintended wipes or missed updates. Missing explicit guidance on when versus a full replace, but otherwise complete.

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% with per-field examples, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds the crucial update semantic (omitted vs empty-list) that the schema itself doesn't state, but no per-field guidance. Baseline 3 appropriate given the rich schema.

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+resource ('Applies a partial edit to an Ideal Customer Profile') and immediately defines the edit semantics (partial, empty-list-clears). Distinguishes it from create_icp/delete_icp/get_icp in the sibling list by the 'partial edit' framing.

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?

Clear on what it does (partial edit, omitted fields unchanged, empty list clears, marks as human-authored) but does not name alternatives or state when to prefer this over a full replace or when not to use it. Context is implied rather than explicitly routed.

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