user_profile

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

The annotation destructiveHint: true already flags destructive actions. The description lists 'remove' and 'replace' which align with that hint, but doesn't add additional behavioral context beyond the schema (e.g., what gets destroyed, required permissions, or idempotency).

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 concise sentences front-load the purpose and persistence, then enumerate actions. No unnecessary words; every sentence carries 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?

While schema covers parameters, the description lacks details about return values (no output schema) and behavior for the 'view' action (e.g., is content/old_text required?). It is adequate but leaves some gaps for an agent to infer.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The description repeats the schema's action list and parameter purposes without adding new meaning, so it meets the baseline but provides no extra semantics.

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 it manages a persistent user profile with specific actions (add, remove, replace, view), distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle feedback, memory, or intermediate context.

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 mentions persistence across sessions but provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like capture_memory_feedback or context_stuff_lessons, leaving the agent to infer usage without explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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