set_my_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that this is an upsert ('Create/update') and adds a useful behavioral trait: 'Git identity is auto-included when available'. However, it does not state whether omitted fields are reset/cleared, whether the operation merges with existing values, or any permissions/ownership checks implied by 'YOUR profile'. This is acceptable for a simple self-profile setter but leaves ambiguity about overwrite semantics.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and packs the field list and an extra behavioral note without waste. Nothing is redundant with the schema titles, and every clause earns its place.

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?

Given the low complexity (three optional string fields), the description is nearly sufficient, and the existence of an output schema covers return values. The main gaps are merge/reset semantics and timezone format, which an agent might need to avoid unintended field clearing. The 'Git identity' note adds useful context, but the description does not fully close the behavior gap for a mutating tool with no annotations.

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?

The schema provides only titles with no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does map two parameters explicitly ('role like backend dev', 'timezone') and clarifies 'about' as 'free-text about'. The role example adds some value beyond the bare title, but timezone format and empty-string behavior are not addressed. This is partial compensation for the schema gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create/update') and resource ('YOUR member profile'), and clarifies that it targets only the caller's profile, which distinguishes it from sibling read tools like get_profile and memory-oriented tools. The parenthetical lists exactly which fields are touched, so an agent can tell what the tool is for without opening the schema.

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 implies this is for the caller's own profile and could be used to set role, timezone, and about text. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives such as get_profile or update_status, and it does not state whether this tool is meant for initial setup or ongoing edits. It reads as a 'use this to modify your profile' without exclusions or comparison to siblings.

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