update_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't mention whether this requires authentication, what happens to unspecified fields (partial updates vs. overwrites), whether changes are reversible, or any rate limits/constraints. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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?

The description is extremely concise - a single five-word phrase. While efficient, it may be too brief given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, mutation operation). Every word earns its place, but more context could be helpful. The structure is front-loaded with the core action, though it lacks any elaboration.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address authentication requirements, error conditions, response format, or the implications of updating profile fields in the broader context of job applications and resumes. The agent would need to guess about many operational aspects.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples of combined usage, or clarify which fields are most important. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update your user profile fields' clearly states the action (update) and target (user profile fields), but it's somewhat vague about scope. It doesn't specify which fields can be updated or differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_profile' beyond the obvious action difference. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While 'get_profile' is clearly a read operation and this is an update, there's no mention of prerequisites, permissions needed, or contextual cues for when profile updates are appropriate versus other profile-related operations. The description assumes the agent knows when profile updates are needed.

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