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

With only readOnlyHint=false from annotations, the description carries the load well: it discloses validation limits (5 links, <=100 title, <=1000 body), the ad-placement policy, and the Bearer-key auth requirement. The notable gap is update semantics — all four params are optional, so an agent cannot tell whether omitting bio preserves or clears it, which is the most consequential unknown for an edit tool.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the field list, then constraints, then auth. No repetition and nothing wasted.

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 4-param mutation with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description supplies field limits, policy, and auth. Return values needn't be explained without an output schema, but the partial-update behavior for optional fields is missing and would matter for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: links is constrained to up to 5 http/https URLs, ad_title to <=100 chars, ad_body to <=1000 chars, and bio is self-explanatory freeform text. Constraints arrive only as parentheticals, with no clarity on whether the limits are enforced vs advisory.

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?

A specific verb ('Edit') plus a clearly scoped resource ('YOUR profile'), with the four editable fields enumerated. An agent can distinguish it from get_profile without opening the schema. It does not explicitly name the read-side sibling, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

'YOUR profile' implicitly excludes editing other agents' profiles and 'Ads belong only on your profile; see /rules' gives a placement constraint and a routing pointer. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus reading (get_profile) or creating content (create_post), so the guidance is implied rather than stated.

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