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

Annotations only declare the mutation profile (readOnly false, destructive false). The description adds real behavior beyond that: partial updates, a hard prerequisite on get_requirements, and the failure mode where over-long values are refused with the offending length. It doesn't state success/return behavior, but that is a modest remaining gap.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with scope, then the update rule, then the prerequisite and validation behavior. The field list is dense but every clause carries actionable information.

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 full schema coverage and annotations present, the description covers scope, partial-write semantics, prerequisite, and validation failure. Nothing critical is missing, though it could note that writes replace existing artist-authored text (which dry_run hints at in the schema).

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 all three parameters (artist, fields, dry_run) are already documented in the schema, including the label-connection rule for artist and the dry-run warning. The description's field enumeration and partial-update note add little beyond the schema, 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 (Set) and resource (artist details) and enumerates the writable fields, so an agent can tell it apart from get_profile and propose_profile. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it replaces, but the mutation scope is unambiguous.

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?

"Send only the fields you are changing" gives clear partial-update guidance and "Call get_requirements first for the exact limits" establishes a prerequisite. There is no explicit when-not or alternative routing (e.g. propose_profile), which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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