update_my_profile

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is already known; the description's added value is the auth/environment prerequisite and the start_login exclusion. It still does not disclose what destruction means here (e.g. that passing a new custom_links array replaces the old one, or that avatar_url=null removes the avatar), which is the key behavioral detail an agent needs for a destructive write.

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 short blocks: capability first, then access requirements, which is reasonably front-loaded and free of padding. The phrasing 'restart this server, then call this tool again' is a little awkward but costs no real clarity.

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 an 8-parameter nested mutation tool with no output schema, the auth prerequisite is covered but the update semantics (merge vs replace, null handling, array replacement) and any confirmation of what is returned are not. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 schema already documents all 8 parameters including nested theme and custom_links fields. The description's field list ('display name, bio, avatar, theme, custom links, verification display settings') is largely a restatement and adds no format, null-semantics, or omission-behavior detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

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 resource ('Update the current user's primary profile') and enumerates the mutable field groups, which is enough to separate it from get_my_profile and list_profiles. It never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling update_profile, so an agent must infer the difference from the 'current user's / my' scoping.

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 implied by the 'my profile' scoping, and the ACCESS block gives a real prerequisite (Proof account, PROOF_API_KEY, and the explicit warning that start_login does NOT open this tool). However there is no guidance on when to prefer this over update_profile, or on partial vs full updates.

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