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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, and destructive=false, so the safety profile is supplied structurally. The description adds genuinely useful context with 'Requires API key', which is an auth requirement not captured in the annotations. However, it does not disclose partial-update semantics or what happens to omitted fields, which matters for a non-idempotent mutation.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the field list and the auth constraint are stated plainly. It is arguably too terse for a 12-parameter tool, but nothing is wasteful.

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 12-parameter mutation with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description leaves several parameters (url, kind, lang, operator, notify_email) unexplained and gives no return or partial-update behavior. It is materially under-specified relative to the tool's complexity.

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 0% across 12 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It names roughly half the fields (name, description, location, categories, countries, phone) but leaves url, kind, lang, operator, and notify_email entirely undocumented in both places. It adds partial but incomplete semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 (change) and resource (profile) and enumerates concrete updatable fields, so the agent immediately knows this edits the caller's own profile. It does not distinguish itself from adjacent siblings like update_deal or register_account, but the purpose 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites beyond the API key, and no exclusions. The agent must infer everything about applicability from the name alone.

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