set_profile

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

Annotations already declare the mutation/upsert safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds real value beyond them: 'Calling again overwrites the profile' clarifies the upsert semantics concretely, and the note that emergency_contact is visible via crisis_resources discloses a cross-tool data visibility characteristic.

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 critical fact (create/update profile) is front-loaded, followed by rationale then field formats. The list of dependent features is slightly wordy but each phrase earns its place by justifying the call. No padding or repetition.

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 5-param mutation tool with an output schema (so no return-value explanation needed), the description covers required vs optional fields, formats, overwrite behavior, and downstream dependents. It stops short of noting permission/auth needs or what happens to unspecified fields on partial updates.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It supplies formats for date_of_birth (YYYY-MM-DD) and sex (male/female), an example for blood_type (A+), a unit-implying name for height_cm, and a definition of emergency_contact as name and phone — plus which fields are optional. It does not clarify accepted date/sex validation edge cases, hence not a 5.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb pair and resource: create or update the user's profile. It also states the downstream rationale (age/sex-dependent features). No sibling in the list competes for this job, so sibling differentiation is a non-issue, but the description never explicitly frames it as the sole profile-setting tool.

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?

It states why the tool matters (reference ranges, screening calendar, risk calculators depend on it) and notes that crisis_resources surfaces emergency_contact, which implies when to populate it. There is no explicit when-not guidance or prerequisites, but the context is clear enough for an agent to place the call.

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