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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds non-derivable behavior: the patch-semantics (unsent fields are untouched) and the immediate public exposure of saved changes. It does not restate the idempotency guarantee, but the schema already documents idempotencyKey thoroughly.

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?

A single sentence with one semicolon and one colon, front-loading the action, then the partial-update rule, then the safety warning. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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 rich annotations, a complete parameter schema, and no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces (patch semantics, immediate public visibility, user confirmation). Coverage is strong; only the idempotency/replay behavior is left entirely to 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine cross-parameter semantics the schema lacks: this is a partial update where only supplied fields change, so omitted fields retain their values. That meaning is not expressed anywhere in the parameter definitions.

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 ('Change the business card customers see on WhatsApp') with the scope clarified as the customer-facing profile, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_whatsapp_profile and create_whatsapp_template. It does not explicitly name the read counterpart as an alternative, but the verb+resource pairing 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?

Gives clear operational context: 'only the fields you pass change' (partial update) and 'It is public as soon as it is saved: confirm with the user,' which is real when-to-use guidance for a sensitive mutation. No alternatives are named, so it stops short of a 5.

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