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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the single destructiveHint annotation: PATCH /profiles/{path}, body wrapped as { data: {...} }, partial-update semantics ("only included fields change"), and overwrite-vs-preserve behavior. It omits permission requirements and return shape, but does not contradict the destructive hint.

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?

Front-loads the mutation warning, then packs endpoint, body-wrapping, merge and overwrite semantics into a few dense sentences. No filler, though it runs slightly long on API mechanics.

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 only destructiveHint and no output schema, the description covers endpoint, partial-update semantics, field merging, and overwrite behavior well. Return values and auth/permission needs remain unstated, which is a minor 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 already 100%, so the schema documents each parameter, but the description still adds API-level meaning: how `fields` merge over typed fields into the wrapped body, what overwriteCustomFields changes, and that `path` is never sent in the body.

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 (updates) and resource (fundraising profile) and enumerates the mutated fields (goal/name/story). It is clearly the write-side counterpart to raisely_get_profile, but it never explicitly names a sibling to avoid, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

"MUTATES Raisely data" flags the write nature and the endpoint, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to siblings like raisely_request or raisely_upsert_user. Usage is only implied by the name and the PATCH detail.

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