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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the write-tier approval requirement ('first use may require a manager's approval; a from-now-on approval makes future calls seamless') and the distinction between human and agent write permissions. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple 'update' verb.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage guidance and a bracketed approval note. No wasted words; each sentence adds information.

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 description covers purpose, usage, role-based permissions, and approval workflow. For a write tool with no output schema, this is sufficient. It doesn't enumerate return values or error conditions, but those aren't expected. The only minor gap is the unaddressed glossary_seen parameter.

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 67%, so the description compensates by defining the core concept ('OPERATOR FLUENCY (baseline + per-topic strengths)') which maps to default_level and domains. It also clarifies the behavior of seed_if_empty. However, glossary_seen remains undocumented in both schema and description.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Update a person's OPERATOR FLUENCY') and clarifies the scope ('baseline + per-topic strengths that follow them across companies'), distinguishing it from generic profile updates. The role distinction ('Human door for edits; agents may seed empty self only') further differentiates it from sibling tools like update_voice_profile.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'when the operator (or an admin) sets or corrects how agents should speak to them, or when seeding an empty profile with seed_if_empty.' It also provides exclusion by role: 'agents may seed empty self only,' making it clear when not to use it.

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