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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only indicates that the tool mutates profile fields; it does not disclose whether updates are partial or replacing, what happens to omitted values, authentication requirements, side effects, or return behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that conveys the action and all relevant fields with no filler or redundancy. Every phrase earns its place, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

With six parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description needs to explain update semantics and invocation context more thoroughly. It omits critical details like whether the update is additive or wholesale replacement, whether empty values are allowed, and what the tool returns, leaving the agent under-informed before calling it.

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 lists all six parameters and adds valuable detail about the endpoint keys (a2a_card_url, mcp_url, api_url, webhook_url), which the schema leaves generic. However, it provides no value semantics or constraints for the other fields, so it only partially bridges the coverage gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Change') with a clear resource ('profile') and enumerates the exact mutable fields: name, description, capabilities, tags, endpoints, and framework. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like update_listing or register_agent, which target different resources.

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?

The description implies this tool is for updating the current user's profile fields, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is conveyed mainly through the title and field list rather than explicit guidance.

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