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

Annotations already establish this is a non-read-only, destructive-capable write, and the description adds the important write-tier approval flow and quiet-hours push-alert behavior. It doesn't spell out overwrite-vs-partial-update semantics, but that is partly covered by destructiveHint.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and scannable, and the approval paragraph is dense but relevant to correct invocation. The bracketed write-tier note is slightly awkward but earns its place.

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 19-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description plus annotations provides enough to invoke it correctly. It could be more complete by explicitly noting partial-update behavior and the full field groups it supports, but no critical omission blocks use.

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 100%, so the schema already handles parameter meaning; the description adds only a high-level summary and a quiet-hours clarification. It even abstracts 'name' where the schema uses first_name/last_name, so it doesn't materially improve on the 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Update the current user's profile.' It also enumerates the settable fields, making the tool's scope unmistakable and distinguishing it from read-only or company-scoped siblings like get_my_profile or update_company.

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 approval note gives clear operational context: call it on the first clear ask, and don't re-ask after the card is shown. It does not name alternative tools for related profile operations, so it falls short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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