Updates the authenticated X (Twitter) user's profile details, including display name, bio, location, and website URL, so account information stays current.
Update the authenticated user's Twitter profile
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | Website URL (max 100 chars) | |
| name | No | Display name (max 50 chars) | |
| location | No | Location (max 30 chars) | |
| description | No | Bio (max 160 chars) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether unspecified fields are left unchanged (partial update), whether calls are rate limited, what error conditions look like, or what the response contains. Only the word "Update" signals mutation.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification given the tool's mutation semantics.
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?
A mutation tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and four optional parameters needs more than one sentence. Partial-update behavior, authentication requirements, and failure modes are all unaddressed, leaving real gaps for an agent deciding how to call it.
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 each of the four fields (url, name, location, description) is already documented with type and max length. The description adds only the "authenticated user's" scoping, which is the baseline expectation rather than meaningful extra meaning.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Update ... profile") and scopes it to "the authenticated user's Twitter profile," which implicitly distinguishes it from get_profile operating on arbitrary users. It is clear but does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as an authenticated session or write scope, and no reference to alternatives. The agent must infer everything about invocation context from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.