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

Annotations establish a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. The description adds partial-update behavior, the impact of timezone on report/export dates, and explicit boundaries around email, password, and avatar changes. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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?

It is front-loaded with the action and affected fields, then adds only necessary constraints and alternatives. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant restatement of the name or 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-parameter optional-update tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it covers updatable fields, partial-update semantics, timezone side effects, unavailable operations, and the read alternative.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds cross-parameter update semantics ('Передавайте только те поля, которые нужно поменять') and highlights the special importance of timezone beyond what the individual schema descriptions provide.

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 ('Правка своего профиля') and enumerates the mutable fields: name, interface language, timezone, theme, and email subscriptions. It also distinguishes itself from the read-profile sibling by pointing to 'Прочитать профиль — user://me'.

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 says to pass only fields that need changing and that subscriptions can be changed one at a time while others remain as they were. It also names unavailable operations (email, password, avatar) and gives the read alternative, covering when to use this tool versus another.

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