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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the single most important and non-obvious behavior: this is a full-object replace where omitted fields are cleared, which implies data loss for partial updates. It also notes the confirm gate execution model. It omits permission/auth requirements and what a rejection or preview response looks like, so it falls short of a 5.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the destructive-semantics warning. No filler sentences and nothing redundant with the 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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 13% schema coverage, the description supplies the critical replace-semantics and confirmation context. The remaining gaps (auth requirements, failure behavior, per-parameter meaning) are minor but keep it from being fully complete.

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 only 13%, so the description is expected to compensate. It explains the semantics of the whole parameter object (omitted fields cleared, hence the required fields must be sent), which is genuinely useful, but it never maps or clarifies the individual optional fields (state, postalCode, addressLine2) or the confirm flag beyond what the schema already documents.

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) and resource (the coach's own contact info), and the parenthetical scope ('coach's own', 'contact info') cleanly separates it from siblings like update_my_bank, update_my_professional, and get_my_profile. An agent can select this tool without opening the schema.

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?

It gives explicit conditional guidance ('read get_my_profile first if only changing one field') and names the alternative tool by name, which is exactly the routing information an agent needs. It also flags the confirm-gating precondition tied to the confirm parameter.

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