trmnl_update_me

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful context by naming the PATCH method (implying partial update) and specifying which fields are in or out of scope, but 'Changes remote state or starts work' is generic boilerplate that restates what the annotations already say.

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?

The purpose and field scope are front-loaded, which is good. However, the trailing sentences 'Changes remote state or starts work. Run only within the user-authorized scope' are generic padding that could be removed without losing tool-specific 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?

For a mutation tool with a nested body object and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope and method. It still leaves out important behavioral details such as whether omitted fields are left unchanged, what the response looks like, and the meaning of the `profile` parameter.

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 50%, so the description must help explain parameters. It lists name, time zone, locale and display settings, which maps to some body fields, but it does not explain the `profile` parameter or clarify how account_name relates to first_name/last_name, leaving gaps.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Update my profile') and enumerates the fields in scope: name, time zone, locale and account-wide display settings. This clearly distinguishes it from the read-only sibling trmnl_get_me.

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 a clear exclusion: 'Email, password and keys stay on the account page,' telling the agent not to use this tool for those sensitive fields. It also includes a caution to 'Run only within the user-authorized scope,' though it does not name an alternative tool for those excluded fields.

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