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

The description says "Preview changing" the profile, which implies a read-only dry-run, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=false. This is a direct behavioral contradiction: an agent cannot tell whether invoking the tool mutates the account or merely previews the change.

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?

The definition is a single compact sentence with no wasted text, and the account scope is front-loaded. The ambiguity comes from word choice and behavioral contradiction, not from verbosity or poor structure.

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-read-only profile mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify whether changes are applied, what accountId means, and what happens on success. It covers the general scope but leaves the core mutation behavior ambiguous.

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?

The description maps three parameters to editable fields (name, about, phone) but never explains the required accountId parameter, despite schema description coverage being 0%. It also adds no semantics for constraints such as lengths or UUID format, so it only partially compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 names specific editable fields (display name, about text, phone number) and the account scope (own profile or organization administered), which clearly distinguishes it from general profile-reading siblings. However, the opening word "Preview" makes the core purpose ambiguous: it is unclear whether this tool actually updates the profile or only previews a change.

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 clear usage context: the account must be one the caller administers, either their own profile or an organization where they are an admin or owner. It also explicitly excludes handles from editability here, though it does not name an alternative tool for handle changes.

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