Edit Share copy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the operation requires login, is validated, and defaults to a dry run. It does not explicitly state what happens when dry_run=false, but the schema's 'preview only' semantics plus 'Same write path' make the write behavior reasonably clear.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The action and fields are front-loaded, followed by the dry-run default, the relationship to waas_update_profile, and the auth requirement. Every sentence 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?

The description covers the core action, fields, validation, dry-run behavior, and login requirement. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves out return values, precise validation rules, and a clear differentiation from waas_update_profile, so an agent may still be uncertain about edge 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?

Schema description coverage is only 25%, so the description must compensate. It names all three editable fields and mentions validation, but does not add concrete constraints or formats for short_phrase, looking_for, or proud_project beyond what their parameter names imply.

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 states a specific action ('Update') and names the exact fields ('short_phrase / looking_for / proud_project'), making the tool's target unambiguous. It also connects to waas_update_profile by saying 'Same write path as waas_update_profile share fields', which helps distinguish it as the share-specific edit tool.

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 provides useful context: dry_run defaults to true, it shares a write path with waas_update_profile, and login is required. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over waas_update_profile or other siblings, leaving the selection partly to inference.

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