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

Goes well beyond the annotations: login is required, the write commits immediately upon confirmation, links is a whole-group replacement (not a merge), the avatar must be pre-uploaded, and a failed image safety check aborts the entire write with no fields persisted. The atomic-failure and full-replacement semantics are exactly the kind of trait annotations (idempotentHint/destructiveHint) cannot convey.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: login requirement first, then the write semantics, then per-field caveats, then the workflow chain. Every clause carries a distinct instruction (replacement, prerequisite, atomic failure, sequencing); nothing is padding.

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 7-param, no-required-field, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the parts that can actually cause a wrong call: link replacement semantics, the avatar pipeline, and canOffer content guidance. It omits nothing critical, though visibility defaults and the effects of null on optional fields are left entirely to the schema.

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 57%, and the description compensates on the high-risk fields: canOffer is explained as the matching axis consumed by search_people (write concrete deliverables, not adjectives), links is declared a full replacement, and avatarUrl carries the upload-first constraint. Remaining gaps are the low-stakes nickname/location/intro fields, which the schema already annotates.

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 ('patch本人公开资料') and immediately frames the scope as the caller's own public profile, separating it from sibling updaters like update_my_company, update_my_signup_profile, and set_my_role_profile. It also names set_link_visibility-style siblings (add/remove_profile_link) so the agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit routing is given: single link edits go to add_profile_link/remove_profile_link rather than this tool's full-replace links field, and avatarUrl requires upload_image_from_url first. The 【组合链】 line spells out the whole get_my_profile → confirm → update → get_my_card workflow, so when-to-use is not left to inference.

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