nostr_set_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden well: it discloses the kind:0 event type, partial-update behavior, fetch-before-write preservation, and the unlocked-wallet requirement. It does not describe the success response, error behavior, or relay publishing confirmation.

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 core purpose, preservation behavior, and wallet prerequisite are front-loaded and concise. The trailing promotional tip about earning_opportunities is unrelated to invoking this tool and does not earn its place.

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 mutation tool with seven optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: what is updated, how existing fields are preserved, and the wallet prerequisite. It leaves some gaps around return values and error behavior, but the schema covers the parameters fully.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all seven optional fields, including relay defaults and URL formats. The description adds useful partial-update semantics but does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: updating the agent's Nostr profile, explicitly identified as a kind:0 metadata event. This distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings such as nostr_get_profile and generic signing tools such as nostr_sign_event.

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 makes clear that this is the tool for updating profile metadata and states the unlocked-wallet prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives like nostr_get_profile or explain when not to use it.

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