update_profile_proofs

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful access context but never discloses the replacement semantics of the destructive operation — that proofs not included in the array may be removed. With annotations carrying the safety signal, this partial disclosure merits a 3.

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 front-loaded with the core operation and then a compact ACCESS paragraph. Both sentences carry functional information (what it controls, how to gain access), with no padding.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema and annotations present, the description covers the operation and access prerequisite but omits the important replacement/destructive semantics of the proofs array. It is adequate but leaves a meaningful behavioral gap for an agent to fill.

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 both parameters (profile_id and the nested proofs array) are already fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of visibility, masking, ordering, and labels maps to those fields but adds no syntax or constraint detail 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Update which verified assets (proofs) are displayed on a specific profile') and enumerates the controlled facets (visibility, privacy masking, ordering, labels). The 'specific profile' scope implicitly differentiates it from the sibling update_public_proofs, though that sibling is never named.

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?

It gives a clear access prerequisite ('needs a Proof account. Set PROOF_API_KEY...') and explicitly excludes start_login as a path ('start_login does NOT open this tool'). However, it offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like update_public_proofs.

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