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

Beyond annotations, it discloses consent requirements, OAuth publishing access, ownership restriction, automatic token handling, id-based renaming, and that 'All submitted content and contact will be public'. This substantially enriches the sparse readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint annotations and warns users against including hidden personal data.

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 compact yet information-dense: the core action is first, followed by prerequisites, ownership constraints, and a privacy warning. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or duplication of schema details.

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 no output schema, the description covers when and how to call it, consent and auth requirements, ownership limitation, rename semantics, and public-data implications. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke it appropriately without further inference.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining every parameter: slug is the key ('by slug'), content should include goals/interests/availability/preferences, contact is public, publish is the explicit consent flag, and id 'allows renaming'. This gives agents enough semantic context to populate each field correctly.

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?

Description opens with 'Publish or update public human context by slug', a specific action on a clear resource, and distinguishes itself from read-only get_profile and upsert_agent/upsert_project siblings by focusing on public human profiles. It also names the update/rename behavior, making the tool's function 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?

Description gives explicit prerequisites: 'Requires explicit consent (publish=true) and OAuth publishing access', and restricts editing to 'Only your own publications'. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like get_profile for reads, but the context makes the intended use clear for publishing/updating own profiles.

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