openpanel_set_user_properties

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It states the operation is an 'Update' but fails to specify whether properties are merged or overwritten, what happens if the profile_id doesn't exist, or any side effects/permissions required.

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 efficiently short, but the '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata leakage that wastes space without adding value. Otherwise, the single sentence is appropriately front-loaded.

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 3 required parameters including a nested object with additionalProperties and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It provides no details on the return value, parameter formats, or the expected structure of the properties payload.

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 has 0% description coverage and the description fails to compensate. It does not explain what 'site' refers to (site ID? domain?), the format of 'profile_id', or the expected structure of the nested 'properties' object (which allows additionalProperties: true).

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 resource (properties for an existing user profile). The mention of 'existing' distinguishes it from user creation tools. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like `openpanel_identify_user` which may also set properties.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like `openpanel_identify_user` or `openpanel_get_profile`. The word 'Update' implies the profile must exist first, but there are no explicit prerequisites, error conditions, or 'when-not' guidance.

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