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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the write is staged as an unsigned intent, requires an external signing step, and must be submitted separately. It omits that all 14 fields are required (likely a full overwrite rather than a partial patch), which is a meaningful behavioral gap.

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?

Two tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the transaction lifecycle immediately following. No filler, though the sentence is dense enough that the workflow detail could be slightly clearer.

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 14-required-param mutation with rich schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the essential intent/sign/submit lifecycle. It lacks any note that a complete profile must be supplied each call, but given the schema and annotations carry most of the load, this is close to 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 description coverage is 93%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter including byte limits, URL formats, and SS58 address formats. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Update your Geode profile'), which is clear and distinguishable from the create sibling geode_profile_new_profile by the verb alone. It does not explicitly name or contrast with that sibling, so an agent must infer the distinction from the tool name rather than the description.

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 description gives clear operational context: it prepares an unsigned intent and nothing happens until signed with geode-local-signer and submitted via geode_submit_intent. This tells the agent how this tool fits into a workflow, though it offers no explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., vs new_profile or social_update_settings).

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