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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is already conveyed. The description adds the auth requirement but does not disclose what 'destructive' means here (e.g. replacing the theme object, removing custom links, null to drop avatar) or that the update is partial vs. full-replace. With annotations carrying the safety signal, this is a moderate addition.

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 with the core action and an enumerated field list, then a clearly separated access block. Slightly redundant that the field list duplicates schema properties, but each sentence earns its place and nothing is buried.

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?

Covers the mutation scope and the auth gate, which are the two things an agent most needs here. However, with destructiveHint=true and 8 optional params, it should clarify partial-update semantics and what gets overwritten/removed. No output schema, so return values need not be explained.

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% and the schema already documents all 8 params, including nested theme fields and the null-to-remove avatar semantics. The description only re-lists field names that the schema already covers, adding no format or default-value detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: 'Update the current user's primary profile', and enumerates the supported fields (display name, bio, avatar, theme, custom links, verification display settings). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like update_profile (likely arbitrary profile by ID/username) and update_profile_proofs.

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?

Names the access precondition and the authenticate flow, which is actionable context. But it never differentiates from update_profile or update_profile_proofs, so an agent has no explicit statement of when to use this self-scoped variant over the more general sibling. Clear context, no exclusions.

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