edit_agent_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that publicConsent=true makes the page public and that tier/completion are computed, but lacks details about mutation semantics (e.g., idempotency, side effects, error conditions, or authorization requirements), which are critical for a write tool.

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 with two sentences, front-loading the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value (purpose, a key parameter behavior, and a computed field note) without redundancy.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits return value, error handling, required fields beyond display_name (though schema indicates it), and parameter validation constraints. The mention of computed fields is helpful but insufficient for a tool with this complexity.

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 only 29% (2 of 7 parameters have descriptions). The description adds value only for publicConsent by reinforcing its purpose, but fails to explain display_name, bio, avatar_url, contact_email, website_url, which lack schema descriptions. This leaves most parameters semantically opaque.

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 'Create or update your public agent profile', specifying the verb and resource. It also mentions a key behavior (setting publicConsent for visibility) and notes computed fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_agent_profile.

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 implies usage for creating/updating profiles and mentions a specific use case (public consent), but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as reading with get_agent_profile or other profile-related tools.

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