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

Annotations cover safety (idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds substantial context beyond them: login requirement, no-review immediacy, whole-group replacement semantics for links, the matching-pool consequence of leaving canOffer empty, and a specific failure mode (image_content_rejected leaves all fields unchanged).

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?

Bracketed headers and bold emphasis make it scannable and front-loaded, and each block carries distinct information. It is on the longer side but nearly every sentence adds actionable detail rather than restating the schema.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers mutation semantics, side effects, the matching consequence, and an error path. Only the unannotated minor fields (nickname, location) and post-update return behavior are untouched, which is a small gap.

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%, with nickname/location undocumented in both places. The description compensates for the critical parameters: links is whole-group replacement, canOffer has concrete content guidance, and avatarUrl must be converted via upload_image_from_url first. It just doesn't cover every field.

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+resource (更新当前用户资料) and immediately scopes behavior ('立即生效，资料修改不走审核'). It also names the sibling tools it is not (add_profile_link / remove_profile_link) and points to get_my_profile, so an agent can distinguish it from adjacent profile tools without opening schemas.

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 when-to-use guidance: read get_my_profile first, prefer add/remove_profile_link for single-link edits, and always fill canOffer during onboarding. Both the alternative and the condition that selects it are stated.

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