profile_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuinely useful behavior beyond the schema: type coercion via YAML parsing, with text stored verbatim. However, it says nothing about whether the change persists immediately, what happens if the dotted path does not exist, or whether missing intermediate keys are created — important for a mutation tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core semantics, with the examples doing real work by demonstrating path syntax that the schema cannot express. Slightly example-dense, but no sentence is 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 two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers input semantics well but leaves the result side entirely open — no mention of what a successful call returns, how failures on an invalid path surface, or whether reads should be done via profile_get first.

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 both parameters are bare strings, so the description has to compensate — and it largely does. The three dotted-path examples teach the syntax for nested keys and array indices ('education[0].period'), and the YAML-parsing sentence explains how 'value' is coerced into numbers, lists and booleans.

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 scope: 'Change one field by dotted path', which clearly distinguishes a single-field mutation from the item-level siblings like profile_add_item and profile_remove_item. It never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'Change one field' — the agent can infer this is for targeted single-value edits rather than bulk writes, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to the alternative profile_add_item or profile_remove_item tools.

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