Update a 37Soul host profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds real value by labeling these fields 'low-risk' and explicitly declaring what cannot be changed (billing, visibility, publishing automation), but it omits permission/auth requirements, whether unspecified fields are left untouched, and whether changes are reversible.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the positive scope (which fields) front-loaded and the negative scope (what it can't touch) immediately after. Every clause earns its place.

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 4-parameter update tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate: scope and exclusions are covered. But with no annotations and no return-value documentation, it leaves gaps around permission requirements and partial-update semantics that an agent calling a mutation would benefit from knowing.

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, including length limits, clearing semantics for greeting, and the replace-not-merge behavior of preferred_channel_ids. The description names the same three updatable fields but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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 (host profile fields) and enumerates exactly which fields are in scope: character, greeting, preferred channels. The 'low-risk owner profile fields' framing sharply scopes the tool, though it does not name or contrast any sibling tool explicitly.

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 second sentence gives a clear when-not boundary by ruling out billing, visibility, and publishing automation, which is useful scoping. However, it never says when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as get_host or list_hosts, and no prerequisites (e.g., needing a host_id from list_hosts) are stated beyond what the schema implies.

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