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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose partial-update semantics ('champs fournis uniquement'), which is genuinely useful, but it omits permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, and treatment of omitted/null fields.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the key constraint (only provided fields) in parentheses. Efficient, though it is too brief to be complete.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage – the description should do substantially more work than one sentence about partial updates. Critical context for correct invocation is missing.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only conveys the partial-update rule and never names or explains bio, email, avatar_url, phone_number, or the required auth_token, leaving field-level meaning to the bare schema titles.

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 (met à jour) and resource (profil de l'utilisateur authentifié), which distinguishes it from sibling update tools like mcp_update_actfile and mcp_update_community. It does not, however, differentiate from mcp_get_user or mcp_delete_user beyond the verb.

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 on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g. mcp_register for creation, mcp_get_user for reads) and no prerequisites such as the auth requirement for editing one's own profile. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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