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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two behavioral traits: the write-tier approval requirement and the meaning of quiet hours. However, it does not state whether updates are partial (only provided fields) or full replacement, nor does it note that some fields (e.g., holdco_vision) are role-specific. These gaps are not covered by annotations.

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 description is concise (two sentences plus a bracketed approval note) and front-loaded with the core action. It lists fields succinctly and adds a critical approval note without extraneous words. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

The tool has 19 optional parameters and no output schema, so the description must provide a coherent overview. It gives a high-level summary and the approval constraint, but it omits important behavior like partial update semantics and role-specific fields (which are only in schema descriptions). For a write tool of this complexity, the description is adequate but not fully 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it merely groups some parameters under 'name, title, phone, linkedin, location, zone of genius, or quiet hours.' It does not clarify the relationships between fields like first_name, last_name, and custom_title, but the schema already provides detailed descriptions for each parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Update') and a clear resource ('the current user's profile'), and lists several fields it can set. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_agent or update_agent_avatar, which target other entities. The scope is unambiguous.

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 implies usage for the current user's own profile ('current user') but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives (e.g., update_agent for other users) or provide exclusions. It does mention a write-tier approval prerequisite, which is usage context, but no guidance on when to prefer this over similar update tools.

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