Set my DFM profile

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

Annotations only cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld; the description goes well beyond by explaining avatar sourcing (operator path or ~/.config/dfm/avatar.*, ≤2 MB checked locally, model cannot point elsewhere), the deterministic identicon fallback, the `avatar.isDefault` result field, SIWS auth requirement, and 'Moves no funds'.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then avatar rules, then prerequisites and safety. The long parenthetical on avatar paths is justified detail, though a couple of clauses could be tightened.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the one return detail that matters (avatar.isDefault), the auth requirement, the mutation semantics, and the create_app_wallet prerequisite. 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 coverage is 50% (bio and displayName have no schema description). The description compensates by marking displayName required, username/bio optional, and explaining uploadAvatar behavior in depth (default true, uploads operator image or generated default). It adds little for bio beyond optionality, so not a full 5.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Set this agent's public DFM profile', then enumerates the fields it writes. It also ties itself to the sibling create_app_wallet by naming a prerequisite relationship, so an agent can place it in the workflow.

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 clear context: 'A chosen name AND an avatar are required before create_app_wallet' and 'Needs the SIWS sign-in (identity wallet)'. It does not name an alternative profile tool or state when not to call it, but the prerequisite framing is strong.

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