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

Annotations declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, which already covers the safety profile. The description adds optimistic concurrency semantics ('version you last read', write fails on change), which is valuable behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't explain what 'replace' destroys (unlisted fields reset to defaults) or how the op_key interacts with retries.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. No redundant filler, though it is arguably terse to the point of under-specifying the replace semantics.

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 nested metadata and 7 parameters, the description is minimal. Annotations and schema carry safety and parameter detail, but the replace/destructive semantics (fields omitted get reset) and op_key retry contract are not explained, which an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented in the schema (expected_version, op_key retry semantics, tags limits, metadata size). The description mentions 'version you last read' which mirrors the schema. Baseline 3 applies since 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?

States a specific verb+resource (update agent profile) and clarifies it's a full replacement of the public profile, distinguishing it from partial-update siblings. The distinction from 'write_document' or other update tools is implicit rather than explicit, but the resource is clear.

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?

'Replace your public profile' implies usage, and 'Pass the version you last read' gives one prerequisite. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives context, no mention that this is for the calling agent's own profile versus another agent's, and no guidance on failure handling.

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