update_professor_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states that only provided fields are updated (others unchanged) and describes the return format (dict with success and message). This is fairly transparent, though it lacks details on error conditions or whether the professor must already 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 well-structured: a purpose sentence, usage guidance, a tagged Args list, and a Returns line. It is concise enough to be quickly parsed, though the Args list could be slightly more compact by grouping related parameters.

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?

Given the 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is highly complete. It explains all parameters, the patch-like update behavior, usage context, and return format. It covers what an agent needs to invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all 12 parameters with brief explanations and examples (e.g., position as 'Assistant Professor', verification_status as 'verified'|'needs_review'|'unverified'). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though examples are minimal.

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 'Manually update fields on a professor profile in the local profiles database.' This specifies the action (update) and resource (professor profile), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_professor_details or find_professors that read or search.

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 advises using this tool for writing confirmed fields (homepage URLs, positions, etc.), which provides clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives beyond the implicit list of sibling tools.

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