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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description corroborates rather than contradicts them by spelling out that set_categories replaces ALL categories while add/remove are additive. It adds real behavioral context beyond annotations — persistence ('The change is saved') and that the response explains what did not change and why — though it says nothing about permissions or limits on how often filters can be rewritten.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its downstream effect, then the trigger, then parameter semantics, then the return shape. The third and fourth sentences are long and comma-chained, and 'The change is saved' is somewhat redundant with the persistence implied by an update tool, but no sentence is filler.

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 nine-parameter mutation tool this covers what an agent needs: when to call it, which sibling supplies current state, the replace-versus-merge contract, and the fact that a before/after diff is returned. With an output schema present, it is not obliged to detail the return payload, and the only untouched area is the profile-numbering parameter, which the schema already documents.

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 the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by explaining the set-versus-add/remove contract and by defining the accepted category vocabulary (slug or Hebrew name from list_categories, main category or subcategory). It does not add detail for the budget or region parameters beyond naming them as in-scope.

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 and resource ('Changes the signed-in user's Tendy profile filters') and immediately scopes it to the three filter dimensions (categories, regions, budget range) that feed list_my_feed, the digest and alerts. It is clearly distinguishable from get_my_profile, which it names as the read counterpart.

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 trigger condition ('when the user asks to get different tenders, or describes a line of business other than the one in the profile') and routes the agent to get_my_profile for the current filters and list_categories for valid category identifiers. It also disambiguates the three mutation modes: set_categories replaces, add_categories/remove_categories keep the rest.

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