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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds two things annotations cannot: the partial-update/merge semantics ('Send only what changes') and that the response carries a ready-to-read summary in a `say` field, which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by the field inventory, the partial-update rule, and the `say` note. The field enumeration is slightly long but not wasteful, since it doubles as a coverage hint for an optional-only schema.

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 14-param, all-optional mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the pieces the schema cannot: patch semantics and the `say` output hint. Return shape beyond `say` is unspecified and no output schema exists, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 all 14 parameters and the baseline is 3. The description lists several field categories (name, phone, location, links, titles, skills, target roles, intros) but omits cv, offers, shifts and years_experience, and adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 clear verb+resource pairing ('Change the person's profile details') and enumerates the field categories involved, so an agent immediately knows this is the write counterpart to the read-only get_profile/get_about_me siblings. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, but the verb contrast makes the routing unambiguous.

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?

'Send only what changes' is a genuinely useful invocation rule that tells the agent to submit a partial payload rather than the full profile. However, no alternatives are named (e.g. upload_cv for the whole CV, get_profile to read first) and there is no when-not guidance, so usage is only implied rather than explicit.

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