update_circle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the operation is limited to the display name, that identity binding is immutable after creation, and that a specific authentication setup (PROOF_API_KEY + server restart) is required. It does not describe response behavior or side effects beyond the mutation, but the key constraints are disclosed.

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 description is compact and front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a crucial mutability constraint and an access note. Every sentence adds distinct value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 simple two-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It states the operation, the mutability boundary, the authentication prerequisite, and the setup action needed. An agent can select and invoke the tool correctly without needing additional context.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The input schema already documents id as 'Circle ID' and name as 'New name for the Circle.' The description adds context that name is the only mutable field, but it does not add new parameter-level format or usage details beyond what the 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 description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Update a Circle's name.' It further disambiguates from sibling tools by stating that only the display name is mutable and that profile/identity binding is create-only, making it clear this is not a general circle-editing tool.

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?

The description clearly implies when to use the tool (rename a Circle) and explicitly excludes a key use case: changing profile/identity binding, which is create-only. It also provides access guidance by requiring a Proof account and API key, and warns that start_login does not open this tool. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool such as create_circle.

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