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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description hints at replacement semantics ('Update which verified assets are displayed') while adding genuinely useful auth context beyond the annotations. However, it never states what the destructive behavior actually is, e.g. whether proofs omitted from the list are removed or hidden, which is the single most important thing to know before calling a destructive tool.

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 purpose sentence, then a clearly separated ACCESS block. Efficient overall, though the access paragraph is slightly wordy for what amounts to one prerequisite plus one warning.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers auth but omits the key operational detail: what happens to existing proofs not present in the supplied list, and what the result of the update looks like. Adequate but with a meaningful gap given the destructive hint.

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 both top-level parameters and every nested item field are already documented. The description's mention of visibility, masking, ordering, and labels loosely maps to the nested fields but adds no format, defaults, or semantics beyond the schema, so the 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 ('Update') and resource ('which verified assets (proofs) are displayed on a specific profile') and enumerates the controlled facets (visibility, privacy masking, ordering, labels). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the very close sibling update_public_proofs or update_profile, so an agent could still hesitate between them.

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 for use: 'needs a Proof account. Authenticate this client... then call this tool again,' and explicitly warns that start_login does NOT open this tool. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over update_public_proofs or update_profile, so no alternative-routing guidance.

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