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

The description adds meaningful mutation semantics beyond the annotations: only supplied fields change, null clears a field, text is stored as written, and certain fields are immutable here. This goes well beyond the readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true annotations, though it does not cover response behavior or validation failures.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the main action and followed by the most important mutation semantics. No filler.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the description is helpful but incomplete: it does not mention job_search_status, does not explain what a successful response looks like, and does not mention permission or validation constraints.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It maps most fields clearly and explains null-clearing semantics, but it completely omits job_search_status, which is a schema parameter with an enum but no textual 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 states a specific verb and resource: changing job title, summary, phone number, or links on the caller's profile. It is clearly distinct from read-oriented siblings like get_profile, though it does not explicitly contrast with update_preferences.

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?

Usage is implied by the field list, and the exclusion of name, email, and work authorisation is useful. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of update_preferences or other profile-related tools.

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