Update WAAS profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the dry-run default, the before/after diff return, the approval requirement for real writes, and the login prerequisite. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it doesn't describe side effects or error behavior.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the action, then helpers, then the critical dry-run/approval guardrail. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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 tool is complex (5 nested params, no output schema, low schema coverage), and the description covers the central safety flow (dry-run -> approval) but omits details like response format for real writes, error conditions, and how sections interact. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 20%, so the description needs to compensate. It adds practical semantics for the experience helpers (fix_dates, set_current, rename, remove_match, remove_ids, order) and explains dry_run's role, but it doesn't explain the share, education, or skills payload semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'Write Experience/Education, Skills, and/or Share on your WAAS profile.' That is clear, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like waas_edit_skills and waas_edit_share, so it stops 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?

Provides key usage guardrails: dry_run defaults to true, returns before/after diff, and dry_run=false requires explicit user approval; also states login requirement. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., waas_edit_skills for skills-only edits), so usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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