my_profile

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reveal the storage medium (Me.md) and the dual read/write nature. However it never states whether 'updates' merges with or overwrites existing fields, what happens to unrecognised keys, or whether an empty profile is created on first write — material behaviours for a mutation path.

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 short sentences, each doing distinct work: what is read, when to read it, and how to write. The field list is front-loaded and the example is placed last where it is most actionable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the single optional parameter is explained with an example. The remaining hole is write semantics (merge vs replace) and error behaviour on unknown keys — modest for an optional single-parameter tool but still a real gap.

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 0% and the only parameter is an untyped free-form object, so the description must compensate — and it does, giving both a concrete call form (updates={'goal': 'build muscle', 'days_per_week': 4}) and the list of valid keys through the field enumeration. It stops short of saying whether partial objects are merged or that arbitrary keys are rejected.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Read the user's profile (Me.md)') and enumerates the exact fields returned (goal, level, age, weight, injuries, equipment, days_per_week, diet, notes). It also discloses the secondary write capability via the updates example, so the agent understands this is a read/write profile endpoint rather than a pure reader — something no sibling tool covers.

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?

Explicitly states when to call it ('Read it before giving advice so the answer is personalised') and what to do about gaps ('ask the user for fields that are empty'), plus when to pass updates ('save new facts the user tells you'). No when-not guidance or alternative tool is named, but the tool's scope is narrow enough that none is needed.

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