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

Annotations already disclose the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description's main added value is the partial-merge behavior. It omits clearing semantics (empty string vs profile_clear_fields) and any auth or validation requirements, so it adds only modest context.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the most important constraint. The "Jobs —" prefix is redundant with the title, but otherwise there is no waste.

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 20-parameter mutation tool with 15% schema coverage, the description is thin: it does not explain how fields are cleared, what the field-naming convention means, or required-vs-optional behavior. The output schema covers return values, but the input-side guidance is far from 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?

With 20 parameters and only 15% schema-description coverage, the description must carry the load, but it only names broad categories (name, phone, links, job kind). Non-obvious field names like you_name, you_work, you_school, you_interests, and profile_clear_fields are left unexplained, and the clearing/overwrite distinction is unaddressed.

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 user's Worklittle profile) and enumerates representative fields (name, location, phone, links, job kind). The verb cleanly separates it from the read-side sibling get_my_profile, though neither sibling is named explicitly.

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?

"Only send the fields to change" gives useful partial-update guidance, implying usage. However, it never states when to use this versus get_my_profile, whether reading first is recommended, or how to remove a value as opposed to changing one.

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