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 that the tool writes to 'system/thinking-profile.yaml', lists the computations performed (connection_preferences, preferred_idea_sources, agent_feedback), and states it is safe to call multiple times. This provides good behavioral context, though it could elaborate on potential side effects or required permissions.

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 concise, with the first line stating the action, followed by bullet points of computations, and a final note on file writing and safety. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 description explains what the tool does (recompute from last 90 days), what it computes (three metrics), and that it writes to a YAML file. It is safe to call multiple times. Given that an output schema exists (as per context), the description does not need to detail return values. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the primary behavior.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description meets this by not introducing unnecessary confusion.

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 verb 'Recompute and update', the resource 'thinking profile', and the scope 'from the last 90 days of events'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_thinking_profile' (read-only) and 'reset_thinking_profile' (reset) by describing its update and computation behavior.

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 notes 'Safe to call multiple times', which implies it can be used repeatedly. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like 'get_thinking_profile' or 'reset_thinking_profile', nor does it mention any prerequisites or when to avoid calling it.

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