Update Concept2 User Profile

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context beyond these: the ownership restriction, the list of updatable fields, and the return value ('updated user profile'). It doesn't contradict annotations and provides behavioral expectations for a mutation tool.

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 one-sentence purpose, a critical constraint, a compact field list, and a detailed Args section. While the Args section largely mirrors the schema, it is useful for quick reference and doesn't waste words. It's appropriately sized for an 11-parameter tool.

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?

For a tool with 11 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the operation, constraints, all parameters, and the return value. It doesn't explicitly state that omitted fields remain unchanged, but the optional nature of all fields implies a partial update. Overall, it provides sufficient context for correct 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that user_id must be 'me' or the authenticated user's ID. It also groups fields with their formats and examples, enhancing the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('authenticated user's Concept2 Logbook profile'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_user or create_result. It also adds the key constraint that only the authenticated user's own profile can be updated.

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 clearly conveys that this tool is for updating the authenticated user's own profile, with an explicit constraint on user_id. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives (e.g., 'use get_user to read'), but the scope and use case are unambiguous, providing clear context without exclusions.

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