set_profile

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses side effects ('Prints as By <name>', drives canonical URLs and CTA links) and defaults (company_url defaults to site_url, logo_url defaults to <company_url>/logo.png). It does not mention permissions, whether it overwrites an existing profile, or what a repeat call does, so there is residual ambiguity.

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-loads the purpose sentence, then uses a clean one-block-per-parameter layout that is easy to scan. It is somewhat verbose, but nearly every sentence conveys a behavioral rule or a parameter meaning rather than filler.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers parameter meaning, defaults, enum values and anti-guessing rules. The remaining gap is lifecycle behavior (overwrite semantics, interaction with reset_profile/get_profile), which an agent would still have 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully, and it does: every one of the six parameters gets meaning, plus the tone enum values (neutral | witty | upbeat | heartfelt | sombre) and default chains for company_url and logo_url. This is well above what the bare schema provides.

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 opening line states a specific verb and resource: it records the publisher identity, location and voice. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_profile and reset_profile, which read or clear the same config.

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 timing ('Run once, after asking') and hard constraints on sourcing values (only user-typed, no guesses, no carry-over from earlier posts). It stops short of naming the sibling tools (get_profile, reset_profile) that are the real alternatives, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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