update_profile

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

Annotations declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds context annotations cannot carry: the required PUSHNOTIF_API_KEY, zero credit cost, and the overwrite semantics for the workspace name and password hash. It also discloses the return shape, which matters because there is no output schema.

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-loaded with purpose, then exclusions, then requirements, then return shape – a logical order with no filler. Slightly dense at four sentences, but every clause carries operational 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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the response shape ({ ok, tenant, password_updated }); with 100% schema coverage on params, it does not need to repeat field syntax. Auth, cost, overwrite behavior, and the sibling exclusion are all covered, so an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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% and both parameters are fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds a small amount of semantic detail (that name is overwritten and that the password hash changes only if new_password is supplied), but no format or validation info beyond the 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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Update the authenticated tenant's workspace display name or account password') and scopes it to account-level profile fields. It explicitly names the sibling update_app_branding as the tool for logo/push-message branding, so an agent can separate the two without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('only for account-level profile or password changes') and an explicit when-not-to-use with the alternative named ('do not use it to change a website's notification logo or welcome push message (use update_app_branding instead)'). Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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