canvas_update_user_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't mention required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens when only partial parameters are provided. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward update operation and front-loads the essential 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?

For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address authentication requirements, error conditions, partial updates, or what the tool returns. The agent lacks crucial context needed to use this tool effectively and safely.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (bio, name, short_name, time_zone, title). It doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide examples of valid values. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('current user's profile'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like canvas_get_user_profile (read vs write) and canvas_update_assignment/course (different resources). However, it doesn't specify which profile fields can be updated, leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (authentication needed), when not to use it, or how it differs from canvas_update_assignment or canvas_update_course. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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