rlm_agent_profile_update

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Update,' which implies mutation, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether previous values are overwritten), required permissions, or error behaviors. The schema notes merging, but the description lacks such transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every word serves a purpose. No wasted space or unnecessary detail.

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 mutates data with 3 required parameters and a nested object, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention success/error responses, return value, or constraints (e.g., profile fields are merged). Fundamental behavioral details are 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal meaning by specifying 'personality, boundaries, communication style' as example fields, but these are already detailed in the schema. No additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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 tool's purpose: 'Update an agent's profile.' It specifies the resource (agent profile) and action (update), and the examples ('personality, boundaries, communication style') differentiate it from sibling tools like rlm_agent_profile_get (get) and rlm_agent_status (status).

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 a basic usage hint: 'Use to set personality, boundaries, communication style.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., agent must exist) or when not to use it. The guidelines are implied but not thorough.

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