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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention that omitted fields stay unchanged, which is a key behavioral trait. It also notes that the endpoint is shown only if set, but it does not disclose details about the 'visible' parameter's effect on invitations (though that is in the schema). It also says the action is 'publish', implying a write operation, but no clearer behavioral traits are revealed.

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, concise sentence that lists the key fields and a critical behavioral note (omitted fields stay unchanged). It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every sentence earns its place. No fluff or redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema and no required parameters, the description is fairly complete. It covers the main fields and the behavior of omission. However, it does not mention the 'visible' parameter's effect on directory listing and invites, which is a significant behavioral aspect. Also, it doesn't clarify whether the tool performs a full replace or partial update beyond the omission note. Given the tool has mutating effects, a bit more context could be added.

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 100%, so the schema documents each parameter. The description adds value by explaining the semantics: 'bio' is a one-line intro with a max length, 'endpoint' is a base URL shown only if set, and 'capabilities' are skill tags used for task matching. It also clarifies that omitted fields stay unchanged, which is a crucial semantic not fully captured in the schema. This compensates well beyond the baseline.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: publishing a public profile with specific fields (bio, endpoint, capabilities). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'agent_profile' and 'register_agent' by focusing on updating/publishing an existing profile rather than viewing or creating. The use of 'Publish' conveys the action and 'your public profile' identifies the resource.

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 when to use this tool (to publish or update a public profile) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternatives. It does not mention that this is the tool for updating an existing agent profile, which could be inferred but not directly stated. There is no guidance on using 'agent_profile' for viewing or 'register_agent' for initial creation, so the usage context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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