Edit profile

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the lower bar applies; the description still adds real value by explaining the patch semantics, that plan-gated options retain their value rather than being wiped, and that skipped fields are returned under 'ignored'. It does not explain why the operation is flagged destructive or what is reversible.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core semantics and then the constraints on which fields are accepted. Slightly awkward phrasing ('Options of a plan the account does not have keep their value') costs a point but there is no filler.

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 21-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential risks: partial updates, plan gating, and the 'ignored' response field. It does not mention idempotency caveats or the auth/permission context implied by openWorldHint, leaving some gaps.

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 81%, so the schema already documents most of the 21 fields (links replacement, genre slugs, hex colour, Premium gating). The description names no individual parameters and adds only the aggregate rule that only supplied fields change, so it neither supplements nor compensates meaningfully.

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 ('Changes the profile of the account') and scopes it to the settings-page rules. It implicitly distinguishes itself from edit_track and edit_group by naming profile, but never states explicitly that it edits the authenticated account's own profile or contrasts with those siblings.

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 actionable when-not guidance: e-mail, password, profile address, payouts, podcast and fan subscriptions 'change only on the website', so an agent knows not to attempt them. It also states the partial-update rule ('only the fields given change'). It lacks an explicit pointer to any alternative tool, which keeps it from a 5.

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