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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the tool mutates a profile and adds an access constraint, but it does not state whether the update is partial or full replacement, what happens to omitted fields, whether prior settings are overwritten, or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then adds necessary access instructions in a short second paragraph. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is a complex mutation (12 params, nested objects, no annotations, no output schema). The description gives access context and accepts fields but omits behavioral semantics like partial update semantics, idempotency, or effects on existing data. It also doesn't clarify how this differs from update_my_profile announced by siblings. Complete enough for a first attempt but not fully robust.

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 already documents each parameter. The description adds high-level grouping ('display info, theme, custom links, and verification display settings') but no additional meaning or syntax beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Update a profile by ID') and resource ('profile'), and lists the categories of updatable content ('display info, theme, custom links, and verification display settings'). It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling 'update_my_profile', which likely targets the caller's own profile.

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 access and authentication context: requires a Proof account, tells you to authenticate then call again, and notes that start_login does NOT open this tool. However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_my_profile or set_primary_profile, leaving the routing decision to the agent.

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