update_public_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 real value with the authentication prerequisite, but it never explains the replace-vs-merge semantics — e.g. whether proofs omitted from the array are removed — which matters a lot for a destructive operation.

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?

Front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence followed by a compact access note; both earn their place. Slightly verbose in the access paragraph but 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 destructive, single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what it edits and how to authenticate but omits the critical behavioral detail of whether unlisted proofs are dropped. Given annotations carry the safety flag, this is adequate but not complete.

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 all nested fields (asset_id, label, is_visible, mask_level, display_order, the 50-item cap) are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of visibility/masking/order merely echoes field names and adds no syntax or defaulting 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update which verified proofs are visible on the user's public profile') and even enumerates the editable aspects (visibility, masking, display order). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the very similar sibling update_profile_proofs, leaving the agent to guess which one to pick.

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 ACCESS section gives a prerequisite (Proof account via PROOF_API_KEY or start_login), which is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as update_profile_proofs or update_profile. Usage is only implied by the resource being the public profile.

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