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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses auth ('needs a key'), replacement semantics for `markdown`, deletion conventions ('null removes', '`none` removes'), and precedence/persistence ('what you write wins over every source and survives every re-read'). It does not describe error behavior or what a successful call returns.

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 purpose in the first clause, then the payload options, with no filler. The second sentence is dense but each element (precedence, persistence) earns its place; minor packing of many field names into one sentence.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers auth, replacement/deletion semantics, and precedence. The main remaining gap is return/confirmation behavior and whether unspecified fields are preserved, which an agent would have to infer.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value: it frames the parameters as an either/or (send a full `markdown` document OR individual fields) and explains what replacement means for each. This goes beyond the per-field descriptions in the schema.

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 ('Edit a profile') plus the scoping constraint 'you own', which separates it from claim_profile, get_profile and search_profiles in the sibling set. An agent can tell what this does without opening the 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 a clear precondition ('needs a key', 'a profile you own'), which sets the context for use. It does not name an explicit alternative or when-not condition (e.g. use claim_profile if you don't own one), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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