set_advisor_profile

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

The description discloses that the operation overwrites the existing profile, which is a key behavioral trait. It also mentions a conditional requirement (accept_disclaimer=true when outbound_enabled=true). It does not mention error cases or side effects beyond overwriting, but the core behavior is transparent given no annotations exist.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that packs all essential information without redundancy or fluff. Each clause contributes to understanding the tool's function, parameters, and constraints.

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 set operation with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it names the file path, required and optional fields, and a conditional dependency. It lacks explicit success/error behavior, but that is not critical for a write tool. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it 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 schema only shows 'profile' and 'accept_disclaimer' with minimal type info. The description compensates by enumerating the required and optional fields inside the profile object, and explaining the conditional need for accept_disclaimer. This covers most semantic meaning, though it stops short of providing examples or edge-case validation rules.

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 action ('save (overwrite)') and the specific resource (advisor profile at a path). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_advisor_profile, which reads the profile, and other data import tools. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies usage when the advisor profile needs to be created or updated, but does not explicitly state 'use this when you want to change the profile' or contrast with read-only alternatives. However, the overwrite semantics and context make the intended use clear enough.

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