update_profile_proofs

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does state that the tool mutates a profile and controls specific proof display attributes, and it discloses a non-obvious access requirement. It does not, however, clarify whether the provided proofs list fully replaces existing proofs or merges with them, nor does it describe failure behavior for invalid asset IDs.

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 core purpose is stated in the first sentence, followed by a brief field overview and a clearly labeled access warning. Every sentence contributes useful information with no 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 tool with two parameters, a fully documented schema, and no annotations or output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the operation, the fields it controls, and the authentication prerequisite. The main remaining ambiguity is whether the proofs array is a full replacement or a partial update, which would be useful for an agent to know before invoking it.

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 100% and each parameter already has a meaningful description. The tool description's mention of 'visibility, privacy masking, ordering, and labels' adds a concise natural-language mapping to the parameters, but it does not materially enhance what the schema already 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Update which verified assets (proofs) are displayed on a specific profile.' It further enumerates the controlled aspects (visibility, privacy masking, ordering, labels), so an agent can clearly understand what this tool does and distinguish it from generic profile or verification tools.

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 provides clear operational context: it requires a Proof account, PROOF_API_KEY must be set, and the server must be restarted before retrying. It explicitly warns that start_login does NOT open this tool, which is a valuable exclusion. However, it does not explicitly compare with related sibling tools like update_public_proofs or update_profile.

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