update_profileUpdate the user's profile settings. Can change name, profession, phone, DOB, or custom prompt.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dob | No | Date of birth YYYY-MM-DD | |
| phone | No | Phone number | |
| last_name | No | Last name | |
| first_name | No | First name | |
| profession | No | Profession | |
| maiden_name | No | Maiden/birth name | |
| middle_name | No | Middle name | |
| custom_prompt | No | Custom instructions for AI interactions |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states 'Update', implying mutation, but does not disclose whether fields are merged or replaced, authentication requirements, idempotency, or side effects.
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 sentences, no fluff, efficient. Every word adds value.
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?
Given 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description lacks context about partial updates, default behavior, and that it applies to the current user. More detail would be beneficial.
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%, and the description lists the main fields but adds no deeper semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'user's profile settings', listing specific fields that can be changed. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like complete_profile or create_person.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., complete_profile for initial setup). No prerequisites or context for usage are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes (create, retrieve, chat). However, generate_compass overlaps with the automatic compass generation in create_person and batch_create_persons, potentially causing confusion about when to use it separately.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_person, get_chat_messages, update_profile). The naming is predictable and clear, with no mixing of conventions.
11 tools is appropriate for a client management system with profile, chat, and compass features. The scope is well-defined and each tool serves a clear function without unnecessary bloat.
The tool set supports create, read, and search operations for people, but lacks update and delete functionality. Also, there is no explicit tool to update a client's compass after creation, and chat management is limited to send and retrieve without edit/delete.