update_profile

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It discloses the partial-update contract (empty values are preserved rather than clearing fields), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about authentication requirements, whether changes are reversible, validation or length limits, or any side effects — significant gaps for a write operation.

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?

One short sentence that front-loads the affected fields and appends the key default-behavior caveat in parentheses. Every element earns its place, with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the three flat parameters are alluded to adequately. For a mutation tool with no annotations, however, the definition should still mention what identity/permission the call applies to and whether omitted fields remain untouched versus nulled beyond the empty-string convention.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: "name" maps to the first_name/last_name pair, "bio" maps to bio, and "empty = keep" clarifies the meaning of the empty-string defaults — without which an agent might reasonably assume an empty value clears a field. It does not clarify whether name changes are atomic across the two name fields or how first/last name interact.

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 names a specific verb ("Change") and the exact fields it touches ("name and/or bio of the account"), which cleanly separates it from read-only siblings such as get_me, get_participants, and the message-oriented tools. It does not explicitly say it operates only on the caller's own account vs. another user's, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative (e.g., 'use get_me to read the current profile first'), so the agent must infer usage from the name. The parenthetical "empty = keep" does give a concrete rule about how to call it, which lifts this above a bare minimum guidance score.

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