ponisha_update_profile

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

Annotations only declare it is a non-readonly, non-destructive, open-world mutation; the description adds real behavioral detail beyond that — partial-update contract, the Ponisha-side rejection of empty job_title, and the irreversibility of clearing a headline. It still does not say what the response looks like or how failures surface.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the field list, then the critical edge case, then the prerequisite read call — a logical order. The telegraphic style ("Fields: ...", "Note: ...") is efficient, though the parenthetical asides make it slightly dense.

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 7-parameter mutation with a nested object and no output schema, the description covers the mutation contract, field meanings, a platform quirk, and the read-before-write step. Missing only return-value expectations and failure behavior for invalid city ids or enum values.

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?

With 57% schema coverage, the description compensates well: it supplies the unit for birth_date (unix seconds) that the schema omits entirely, restates gender as MALE/FEMALE, and explains the nested `extra` bag for unlisted fields. marriage_status is listed but given no value format, leaving one 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Update your profile") and enumerates the mutable fields, so the agent knows exactly what the tool touches. It implicitly separates itself from siblings like ponisha_update_skills and ponisha_update_portfolio by scope, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Gives concrete usage rules: pass only changed fields (partial-update semantics), route unrecognized fields through `extra`, and read state first via ponisha_get_profile. No explicit when-not-to-use or exclusions relative to the other update_* siblings, 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.