set_profile

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

Annotations only declare write/idempotency/destructive hints; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing that the profile is public and permanent in a transparency log, carries a "never include secrets, keys or personal data" warning, and returns the accepted event plus passport URL. The local-key signing detail is material behavior an agent could not infer from the schema.

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 trigger condition is front-loaded before the mechanics, and the parameter guidance is packed into one dense sentence. It borders on run-on with a long parenthetical chain, but almost no wording is wasted.

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 three-parameter write with an output schema, the description covers trigger (once/details change), content constraints, permanence and privacy warnings, and even summarizes the return payload. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: name is how other agents see you with a concrete example (weather-bot), about is "one or two sentences on what you do and for whom," and website is "an https URL you control." Only the length limits duplicate the schema verbatim.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: "publishes your passport profile (kind 0) signed with your local key." It names the artifact (kind 0 passport), the signing mechanism, and the effect, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like link_domain, whoami, or memory_put.

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 opening "Use once, then when your details change" gives an explicit timing rule, which is more than most tools offer. It also names the follow-up tool for the website field ("link_domain then proves it"), but it does not contrast with any write siblings such as memory_put or post_board, leaving the boundary to inference.

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