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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces this by stating the previous values are overwritten and that only passed fields change (partial-update semantics). It also discloses the backing endpoint (GET /api/people/update) and a restoration workflow, though it omits auth requirements and rate limits.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the operation type and resource. Every clause carries information: scope, update semantics, restoration advice, and id sourcing. No filler.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, it covers scope, partial-update behavior, prerequisites, and recovery. The notable gap is the absence of any statement about what a successful update returns, which the missing output schema leaves undocumented.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds sourcing guidance beyond the schema — it states that both field_id AND option ids come from breeze_list_profile_fields (the schema documents option_id usage but not where to obtain it). No format syntax is added for the nested details object, which the schema already covers.

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?

Starts with an explicit 'WRITE: set profile fields on an existing person' and enumerates the field domains (email, phone, address, dates, options, family role, custom fields). This clearly separates it from breeze_add_person and breeze_get_person in the sibling list.

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?

It routes the agent to the right prerequisites: read with breeze_get_person first if values may need restoring, and fetch field_id/option ids from breeze_list_profile_fields. It gives clear context but states no explicit when-not condition.

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