briefing_set_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: partial updates ('只传需要更新的字段，其他保持不变') and the impact on news filtering ('兴趣偏好是新闻过滤的核心依据'). This goes beyond a basic 'update profile' statement and gives meaningful context. It could further explain replace-vs-append semantics for arrays, but the disclosed behaviors are valuable.

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 concise and front-loaded: it states the purpose, gives usage triggers, and explains update semantics in two sentences. Every sentence carries useful information with no redundancy or irrelevant details.

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 setter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core context: what it does, when to use it, and its impact. It lacks details like the optional 'token' parameter semantics (though schema covers it) and any prerequisites (e.g., user must be registered). However, given moderate complexity, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value beyond the schema by explaining that only changed fields need to be passed, which is not evident from the schema alone. It also maps user intents to the 'profile' parameter, enriching parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '设置或更新用户的兴趣偏好' (set or update user's interest preferences). It provides specific trigger phrases like '我想关注XX' and '不想再看XX', making the intent clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool briefing_create_profile_interactive, which likely handles similar profile creation functionality.

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?

The description gives explicit examples of when to invoke the tool (when user says they want to follow/add interest/avoid content) and instructs to pass only changed fields, which is a clear usage rule. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives like briefing_set_sources, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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