update_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the auth prerequisite and that start_login alone is insufficient, which is important operational context. However, it does not state whether updates are partial or full replacements, how unspecified fields behave, or what the response contains—significant gaps 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: one clear action sentence, a scope sentence, and a necessary access warning. No wasted words or redundant restatement of schema fields.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides purpose and auth context but lacks operational completeness. It omits update semantics, response behavior, and guidance on how this tool relates to update_my_profile. It is adequate but leaves meaningful 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 every parameter thoroughly. The description simply summarizes high-level categories like theme and custom links without adding parameter-level meaning. This meets the baseline but does not add extra semantic value.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Update a profile by ID.' It then enumerates the editable categories (display info, theme, custom links, verification display settings), which clarifies scope. It does not explicitly differentiate from update_my_profile, but the 'by ID' framing implies targeting a specific profile, which is reasonably distinct.

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 explicit access guidance: requires a Proof account, PROOF_API_KEY must be set, and the server restarted. It also explicitly warns that start_login does NOT open this tool, which is a useful exclusion. It stops short of naming update_my_profile as the alternative for updating one's own profile, so the when-to-use guidance is incomplete.

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