Update Profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about permissions required, whether the rename persists server-side, what happens to already-issued tokens or sessions, or whether the change is reversible. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap, only partly offset by the presence of an output schema.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally sound, but the brevity crosses into under-specification rather than economy. Nothing is wasted, yet very little is delivered.

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?

With an output schema present the return shape need not be described, but for a two-parameter mutation with no annotations the definition leaves key calling questions unanswered — the meaning of 'server', the scope of 'current client', and the effect of the rename. It is not complete enough for confident invocation.

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 for both parameters, but it mentions neither explicitly. In particular the optional 'server' parameter (default "") is never explained — an agent cannot tell whether it namespaces the profile, targets a remote server, or is irrelevant here.

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 and resource, 修改 (modify) + 用户名 (username), and scopes it to the current client (当前客户端). An agent can tell this is a profile mutation and not a server/task operation, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the server-management siblings. It is clear but not differentiated.

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 statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as set_default_server or register, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The agent must infer usage entirely from the one-line purpose.

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