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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, non-destructive). The description adds critical context: it's a full replacement (全量) affecting the personalized feed via embedding updates, and requires login. This goes beyond annotations by explaining the side effect on feed personalization.

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?

The description is compact, front-loaded with the login requirement, and uses bracketed tags for scannability. Every clause conveys useful information, though the combination chain could be slightly clearer.

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 simple two-parameter update tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the key behavioral aspects: full replacement, embedding update, feed impact, login requirement, and the alternative tool. It does not explain return values, but there is no output schema and the mutation is idempotent.

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 both parameters (interests, freeText) are fully documented. The description mentions '兴趣+描述' but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description uses a specific verb (全量改 - full replacement) on specific resources (兴趣+描述 - interests and description) and mentions the downstream effect (更新embedding - updates embedding). It clearly distinguishes itself from set_my_match_preference and notification settings, though the full-replacement nature could be stated more prominently.

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?

Explicitly provides a combo chain (get_my_profile→确认→set) and names the alternative for matching (set_my_match_preference). Requires login is stated. It lacks explicit when-NOT-to-use guidance beyond distinguishing from matching and notification settings, but the context is clear.

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