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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation/in-place-overwrite character is conveyed. The description adds the useful auth caveat about sb_* tokens, but offers nothing about partial-vs-full update semantics or what happens to unspecified fields. Marginal added value over annotations.

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?

Two tight clauses, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the access restriction second. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 2-parameter, no-required-field mutation with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient and adds the sb_* token restriction. It leaves partial-update behavior unstated, which is a minor gap for an update tool.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema. The description merely restates the same two fields (nombre completo, descripción) without adding format or merge semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Actualiza) and resource (perfil del usuario autenticado) and enumerates the affected fields. It is clearly distinguishable from the read-side sibling get_user_profile without opening either 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?

Provides an explicit availability constraint ('No disponible para tokens sb_*'), which is genuine when-not-to-use guidance. It does not name the read alternative (get_user_profile) or other exclusions, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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