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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and idempotent. The description adds important context beyond that: unspecified fields are preserved, and setting 'kontaktierbar' to false has the concrete effect of preventing anyone from messaging the user via the marketplace. It also instructs the agent to tell the user what will change beforehand.

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?

Front-loads the core action and then adds only the details an agent needs: partial update semantics, a key parameter effect, and a confirmation instruction. Every sentence earns its place.

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 optional parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, this is nearly complete. The description could say more about validation or return behavior, but the schema already documents field-level constraints such as the 300-character limit.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying partial-update behavior and explaining the specific consequence of 'kontaktierbar=false'.

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: changing the user's own profile. It is clearly distinct from the sibling profil_ansehen without naming it, and an agent can immediately tell what the tool does.

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 usage context: pass only changed fields and notify the user before applying changes. It implies when to use this versus viewing the profile, but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases.

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