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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, so the description should explain what is destroyed or replaced; it never says whether supplying the array overwrites prior proof configuration or merges with it. It does add useful auth context (needs a Proof account, start_login opens a session), which is genuine value beyond the annotations.

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?

Purpose sentence is front-loaded and dense, and the ACCESS block is separated out so it does not bury the purpose. Slightly verbose on the auth workflow but nothing is wasted.

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?

A destructive mutation with no output schema needs more than purpose plus auth: the overwrite semantics and the fate of proofs omitted from the array are left unstated. The rich item schema compensates for parameter detail, but the mutation contract itself is incomplete.

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 nested item schema already documents label, asset_id, is_visible, mask_level, and display_order. The description's field list mirrors the schema rather than adding semantics such as the max-50 cap or replace-vs-merge behavior.

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), resource (verified proofs on the user's public profile), and the fields affected (visibility, masking, display order). It just misses differentiation from the very similar sibling 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?

No when-to-use or when-not guidance, and a closely related sibling (update_profile_proofs) is never mentioned. The ACCESS block gives a conditional authentication procedure, which is actionable context but not tool-choice routing.

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