update_latent_features

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. While it indicates a write operation ('update'), it does not specify whether the merge or replaces, any side effects, permissions required, or expected response. This is a significant gap 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 concise with only three lines, front-loaded with the main purpose. The 'Args' line is helpful but somewhat redundant. Could be slightly tighter, but overall efficient.

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 tool has one parameter and no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core functionality but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., does it merge or replace?), error handling, and return value. It is minimally viable but incomplete for complex interactions.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage (no description in schema), but the tool description includes an 'Args' line explaining the 'features' parameter as 'Dictionary of latent features extracted from analysis'. This adds context beyond the type definition, though it does not detail the dictionary's structure or constraints. Baseline for low coverage is 3.

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 the verb 'update' and the resource 'profile with latent features'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'save_profile' and 'update_author_notes' by specifying 'latent features', indicating a specific update operation. However, the term 'latent features' could be more explicitly defined.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'save_profile' or 'analyze_reading_patterns'. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases. This leaves the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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