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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It identifies the operation as an 'update' (implying mutation) and gives access context, but it does not explain whether the update is a full replacement or incremental, what happens to proofs omitted from the array, any side effects, idempotency, or the response format. For a mutating 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 two sentences: the first clearly states the purpose, the second provides essential access instructions. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary filler. The access note is relevant and earns its place. Overall efficient and well-structured.

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 mutation tool with a nested array parameter and no output schema, the description covers the operation's purpose and access requirements, but omits what the caller should expect on success (e.g., return value or confirmation), any constraints beyond the schema's maxItems, and how the update interacts with existing profile state. The absence of response details and partial-update semantics leaves the definition 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?

The input schema already describes the single 'proofs' parameter thoroughly (each sub-property like label, asset_id, is_visible, mask_level, display_order has a description, and mask_level has an enum). Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds little beyond restating these fields. It mentions 'visibility, masking, and display order' which map to the schema, but does not add new meaning or constraints not already present.

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 clear action ('Update which verified proofs are visible') with a specific resource ('user's public profile') and lists the aspects covered (visibility, masking, display order). It is not a tautology and conveys the core functionality. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'update_profile_proofs', which could cause ambiguity for an agent choosing 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?

The description includes practical access prerequisites ('needs a Proof account', authentication via /mcp or start_login), which is helpful. But it provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as 'update_profile_proofs' or 'update_my_profile', and does not state any exclusions. The access information is useful but incomplete as usage guidance.

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