update_my_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that this is a mutation of the current user's profile and that it requires prior Proof account setup. However, it does not clarify whether omitted fields are preserved or overwritten, what side effects occur, or what the operation returns.

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: the first sentence states purpose and supported fields, while the ACCESS note is separated and directly actionable. There is no redundant wording, and every sentence earns its place.

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 8 optional parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and access requirements. However, it does not explain partial-update semantics, return values, or error behavior, leaving the agent to infer important invocation details.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the structured schema already explains every parameter, including nested theme and custom_links fields. The description only broadly lists the supported categories without adding constraints, defaults, or merge behavior, so it meets the baseline but adds no meaningful semantic value beyond the schema.

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-resource pair: 'Update the current user's primary profile,' which clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like update_profile (which suggests updating a profile by ID rather than the caller's own primary profile). It also enumerates the supported fields, making the tool's scope immediately understandable.

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 gives clear context: use this tool to modify the signed-in user's primary profile. The ACCESS note adds important usage prerequisites by requiring a Proof account and a configured PROOF_API_KEY, and explicitly warns that start_login does NOT open this tool. It stops short of naming alternative tools such as update_profile for non-primary profiles, so it is not a full 5.

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