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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses draft-only behavior, the admin authorization prerequisite, that other content is preserved, and extensive content-safety constraints (no scripts/iframes/fetching, sanitized attributes, element allowlist). It stops short of explaining concurrency/idempotency semantics of expected_version/request_id or the return shape.

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-loaded with the critical constraint (DRAFT ONLY) followed by requirements and then the profile grammar. Extremely dense with every clause carrying information, though the long single paragraph of content rules verges on a wall of text.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is unusually complete, covering safety, authorization, draft scope, and nested field rules. It falls short only on return-value expectations and the token/coach_id parameters.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the most complex parameter: profiles is described in detail (max 20, ordered, platform_url, label, active, button_html vs profile_url/logo_url). It acknowledges expected_version and request_id as required but leaves token and coach_id (beyond 'one existing coach') unexplained.

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 (save) and resource (external profiles for one existing coach) and explicitly scopes it to DRAFT ONLY, which separates it from the publish path. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling online_teacher_profiles_get and the online_content_edit publication tool.

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 routes publication to online_content_edit publish/rollback, telling the agent when to use a different tool. It also states the prerequisite of existing administrative save authorization, though it does not explicitly contrast with online_teacher_profiles_get for reading.

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