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

Goes well beyond annotations: it discloses partial-update semantics ("Omitted fields are left as-is"), explicitly describes null as the way to clear a field, and instructs the agent to ask the user rather than guess when source data is missing. These are behavioral details that annotations alone do not convey.

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?

Well-structured with bolded section labels (VISIBILITY, SUMMARY WRITING GUIDE) and front-loaded with the core partial-update behavior. Every sentence carries actionable guidance; the summary writing guide is dense but directly useful for the agent's output quality.

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 14-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers selection semantics, prerequisite reads, field-clearing behavior, source-data verification, visibility consequences, and summary quality. It does not describe the response/return value or error behavior, but those are secondary for an update call.

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. The description adds cross-parameter meaning with the only-changed-fields and null-clearing rules, plus a detailed summary writing guide and a visibility trade-off instruction. It does not individually elaborate every parameter, but the schema already handles those.

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: "Update the user's Remoet profile core and/or their visibility." This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling sub-resource savers like save_education, save_project, and save_work_experience without needing to open 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?

Provides explicit usage context: "Only provide the fields you want to change" and "Always read the current profile first with get_profile." It names get_profile as the prerequisite companion, though it does not explicitly enumerate when to prefer sibling update/save tools over this one.

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