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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: 'Only the fields you pass are written; arrays replace the whole list. No re-crawl happens. Clears the profileStaleAt flag.' These are important side effects and update semantics that are not in the schema or annotations, giving the agent full knowledge of the tool's impact.

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 four sentences with no filler. It opens with the action and fields, then gives usage condition, then update behavior details, and ends with the flag-clearing side effect. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the essential 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?

For a write tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary operational aspects: what it does, when to use it, how updates behave (partial, array replacement), that it doesn't re-crawl, and that it clears an existing flag. There is nothing an agent needs to call it correctly that 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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the semantics of the parameters: fields are optional (only passed fields are written), and arrays replace the entire list, which is critical for correct usage. It names the fields but doesn't elaborate on each field's meaning, yet the names are self-explanatory. Slight deduction because it doesn't explicitly mention that projectId is required, though that is in the schema. Overall it adds meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 action ('Correct the inferred profile...') and enumerates the exact fields affected (description, primary offer, benefits, key differentiators, use cases). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like resync_asset_profile by explicitly noting that no re-crawl happens, so an agent can tell what this tool does versus alternatives without ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly specifies the condition for use: 'Use when get_project_asset shows claims that contradict what the operator actually sells (profileStaleAt set, or the operator says so).' This gives a clear trigger, and the mention of 'No re-crawl happens' implicitly differentiates from resync_asset_profile. The description tells the agent exactly when to invoke it.

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