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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that this is a full-object replace ('Sends the full object') and that it is confirm-gated, but the confirm gate is already documented in the schema. It does not cover auth/permission requirements, reversibility, or what happens to fields on a partial send beyond the read-first hint.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the field scope and the confirm-gate/read-first caveats front-loaded. Every clause adds useful information an agent can act on.

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 10-parameter tool with 8 required fields, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the headline intent and the read-first/confirm caveats but leaves several required parameters (gallery, profilePhoto, certificateFiles) unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 10%, so the description must compensate. It names six of the ten parameters (specialties, certifications, years of experience, bio, languages, business type), adding some semantic framing, but omits gallery, profilePhoto, certificateFiles, and confirm and gives no format/formatting detail.

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 professional info) and enumerates the fields it governs. The enumerated fields (specialties, certifications, years of experience, bio, languages, business type) clearly separate it from siblings like update_my_contact, update_my_bank, update_my_availability, and update_my_testimonials.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite workflow: 'read get_my_profile first if only changing one field,' naming the sibling to consult. It also implies full-object semantics via 'Sends the full object.' It stops short of stating when-not-to-use or alternatives for bulk changes, so it is clear context without full exclusions.

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