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

Annotations already declare destructive/idempotent/readOnly=false, but the description adds substantial beyond-schema behavior: partial-update semantics ('fields you leave out keep their value'), replace-whole-field semantics for lists, and the set of fields that cannot be changed here. This is exactly the mutation context an agent needs.

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?

Front-loads the audience and auth requirement, then the field list, then the update semantics and the authorised rule. Dense but every sentence carries distinct operational value with 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 13-param destructive mutation with no output schema and near-zero schema coverage, the definition is largely complete: it covers auth, mutability, replacement semantics, and the confirmation gate. It stops short of describing the response or failure behavior, a minor gap given the otherwise thorough coverage.

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 only 8% (just supplier_token), yet the description names nearly every updatable field and groups them, and explains the crucial list-replacement rule ('a processes list replaces the stored list, so send the complete list'). It compensates well for the sparse schema and flags the immutable fields.

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 (update) and resource (my profile / manufacturer profile) and enumerates the exact mutable fields. It clearly differentiates from get_my_profile by being the write counterpart, and scopes the audience ('for a manufacturer's agent').

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?

Gives concrete prerequisites (needs the supplier token) and a conditional rule for the authorised flag ('set authorised: true only after the manufacturer confirmed the change'). It does not explicitly name the read alternative or when not to call it, but the use context is well established.

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