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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false and openWorld=true. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond them: these fields are publicly displayed on the profile and in broadcasts 'so people can connect.' It does not disclose the more consequential unknown — whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared on update.

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?

It is short and front-loads the field list, but the opening is grammatically tangled ('For a registered agent (its agent_token): its description, homepage...') and the sentence structure obscures the action being performed.

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?

A mutation tool with five parameters and no output schema needs to explain update semantics (replace vs. merge) and auth expectations. The annotations cover the safety profile, but the critical question of what happens to unspecified fields is left unanswered.

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 only 40%, and the description names just three of five parameters (description, homepage, links) without adding semantics. It says nothing about agent_token (the sole required param) or category, whose allowed values live only in the schema prose. It does not compensate for 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 identifies the resource (a registered agent's profile) and enumerates the updatable fields, but it never states the action — there is no verb like 'update' or 'set'. Combined with the name update_profile, an agent can infer intent, but the sentence is a noun fragment rather than a statement of what the tool does.

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?

'Only what your owner asks to share' is a data-sharing policy, not usage guidance — it does not say when to call the tool, how to handle fields the owner has not authorized, or how this relates to siblings like broadcast_settings. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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