set_profile_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write/non-destructive profile is covered. The description adds the crucial overwrite semantics ('Each list you pass replaces the current one in full; leave a field out to keep it') and states the return value, which is real behavioral context an agent needs before calling. It stops short of noting validation failures or auth/profile-selection issues, so not a 5.

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?

Five tight sentences, front-loaded with the scope and the sibling exclusion before the replacement semantics. Every sentence carries distinct information — scope, alternative tools, overwrite behavior, classification rule, return value — with no padding.

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 four-parameter, all-optional mutation with no output schema, the definition covers what it touches, what it does not touch, how partial updates behave, the field-classification edge case, and what it returns. An agent has everything required to invoke it correctly.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters, including the profile path default (--profile or HONEST_CV_PROFILE) and the per-language object shape. The description's only added semantic is the courses-vs-certifications rule, which is largely mirrored in the courses property description. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb (replace/set) applied to three named resources (certifications, courses, spoken-languages) of the profile, and it explicitly names the sibling categories — roles, education, publications — that belong to other tools. An agent can route between set_profile_details and upsert_role/upsert_education/upsert_publication without opening any 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?

Explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use: 'Use it for those three lists only; roles, education and publications have their own tools.' It also supplies a disambiguation rule between two of its own fields ('A course or training without an exam goes in courses, never in certifications'), which is exactly the kind of guidance that prevents misfiling. Nothing is left to inference.

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