update_public_proofs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses an authentication requirement and indicates the call changes public proof visibility, masking, and order, but it does not say whether the proofs array replaces all existing configurations, how omitted proofs are handled, or what side effects occur.

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?

Two compact paragraphs with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The ACCESS note is concise and valuable, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

The schema and access guidance cover parameter structure and auth prerequisites, but since this is a mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify whether the input is a full replacement or partial update. It also does not distinguish itself from update_profile_proofs, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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%, with clear descriptions for proofs, asset_id, is_visible, mask_level, and display_order. The description's first sentence restates visibility, masking, and display order without adding meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Update' and resource 'which verified proofs are visible on the user's public profile', and lists visibility, masking, and display order as the modified aspects. This is clear and actionable, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the similarly named update_profile_proofs sibling.

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 note provides concrete prerequisites and a clear two-step path: set PROOF_API_KEY or start_login, then call again. It gives clear context on when the tool is usable, but does not mention alternatives or exclusion conditions such as preferring update_profile_proofs for other profile proof changes.

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