update_thinking_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's side effect (writes to system/thinking-profile.yaml) and states it's safe to call multiple times. However, it does not detail authorization needs, rate limits, or whether the operation is idempotent, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise: one purpose sentence followed by a bullet list of computed fields, ending with a safety note. Every sentence is informative and the structure facilitates quick scanning.

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?

Given zero input parameters, the presence of an output schema (indicated by context signals), and the description's clear explanation of computed fields and output file, the coverage is complete. No additional information is needed for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description need not explain input schema. It adds value by explaining what the tool computes, which is more helpful than a simple 'no parameters' statement. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: recompute and update the thinking profile from the last 90 days. It lists specific computed fields (connection_preferences, preferred_idea_sources, agent_feedback) and the output location (system/thinking-profile.yaml). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_thinking_profile' (read-only) and 'reset_thinking_profile' (full reset).

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 explicitly states when to use it ('recompute and update the thinking profile') and notes it is safe to call multiple times. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives, though sibling tool names imply differentiation.

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