update_user_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It says 'update' and 'record,' which can sound additive, but the actual behavior is that content replaces the entire section. That destructive/overwrite trait is only present in the parameter schema, not in the tool description, and no other behavioral details like persistence or output are disclosed.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The first states the core action and resource, the second gives concrete real-world triggers. Every phrase adds value.

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 tool with full schema descriptions and no output schema, the description provides enough context: it states the action, the resource, and when to use it. The main missing piece is an explicit overwrite warning in the tool description, but the schema already communicates that to an agent.

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%: both `section` and `content` have explanatory descriptions, including allowed section values and the fact that content is markdown and replaces the section. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Update a section of the user profile') and further narrows the intent with 'observations, preferences, or notes.' This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like get_user_profile and the various light/vibe actions.

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 gives explicit usage cues: 'record things the user tells you about their preferences' and 'add evolution notes with suggestions.' It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the read/write split with get_user_profile is clear enough from context.

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