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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description justifies that by disclosing that an empty string clears a field. Still missing is whether a write replaces all fields or merges with existing ones, which matters a lot given the destructive hint.

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 core purpose, then the write semantics, then the escape hatch and the sibling. Every sentence carries information – 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?

There is only one parameter, and the description covers writing, clearing, and the list/read mode that stands in for a missing output schema. It also names the adjacent tool for excluded fields, so nothing needed to call this correctly 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?

The schema's per-property text is only an example, but the description adds the real semantics: `values` maps field_id to a new value, an empty string clears, and an empty object lists all fields with id, type, allowed options and current value.

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 and resource (save facts into profile fields) and gives concrete examples (birthday, city, role, company stage). It also names the sibling tool that covers the fields this one does not, so the tool is separable from update_my_profile without opening either schema.

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 explicit routing: name, headline, timezone, website, LinkedIn URL or X handle go to update_my_profile. It also notes the empty-`values` call lists fields, so the agent knows how to bootstrap before writing.

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