update_profile

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds value by disclosing the sanitizer, the 2000-character cap with constant name, and the truncated:true response flag, instructing the agent to branch on it and noting the remainder is discarded. This goes beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences with dense but relevant information. Front-loads the main action, then details edge behavior. No wasted words, though the first sentence is long.

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 simple two-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description covers key behavior (sanitizer, truncation, flag). It could mention upsert or error conditions, but these are not strictly required given the tool's simplicity.

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 100%, so the schema already describes both parameters. The description adds context about the sanitizer and the truncated behavior, but mostly reiterates the cap and truncated flag already in 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?

The description clearly states 'Save a pre-computed agent profile to the database' with a specific verb and resource, and differentiates from siblings by noting the profile's own ceiling and referencing store's sanitizer.

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 implies usage by specifying 'pre-computed' profile and the cap behavior, but does not explicitly state when to use store vs update_profile or any exclusions. Context is clear though.

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