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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses auth requirements, privacy behavior (name/email never surfaced), content validation that refuses emails, phone numbers, links and @handles, and the crucial full-replacement semantics of omitted fields. The replace behavior is exactly the kind of trait annotations do not cover.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the sign-in prerequisite and the high-risk replace rule, with no filler. The privacy/validation sentence is longer but carries genuine behavioral 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 5-parameter mutation with an output schema (so return values need not be explained), the description covers auth, replacement semantics, privacy and validation. Minor gaps remain, such as ownership checks on registration_id and error behavior, but nothing essential is missing.

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 80%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: the fields are the anonymous profile candidates see, and omitted fields are cleared rather than left unchanged. It does not add per-parameter detail beyond the schema, which is why it stops at 4.

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?

The description names a specific verb ('Saves') and resource ('the anonymous referrer profile candidates see') and enumerates the fields it controls (role, team, level, role areas). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like update_cv_variant or set_referrer_availability without needing to open a 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?

It states a prerequisite ('Requires techjobs.vn sign-in') and a critical usage rule ('Omitted fields are cleared, so send the whole profile'), which tells the agent how to call it correctly. It does not explicitly compare against siblings or say when not to use it, keeping it 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.