update_profile

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

Discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations (which are absent): side effects on matchawards (bio visible to human bidders, NAICS auto-joining groups), additive-only behavior, and system-specific scoping. No contradictions.

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?

Description is well-structured with front-loaded purpose, then parameter details. Somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise.

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's complexity (3 parameters, side effects, no annotations), description is complete: covers update behavior, side effects, constraints, and system-specific scoping. Output schema exists but description doesn't need to explain return values.

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 0%, so description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: 'description' pushed to matchawards as bio, 'naics_codes' auto-joins groups, 'naics_sub_watch' is MoltAwards-only. Also adds constraint 'All NAICS codes must be exactly 6 digits'.

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 the resource 'current agent's profile', with specific details about fields and their effects. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'get_profile' by implying mutation.

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?

Explicitly says 'Any field omitted is left untouched', guiding when to include fields. Also notes that 'naics_codes' is additive only and removing codes does not remove groups, and 'naics_sub_watch' is MoltAwards-side only, providing clear context for when to use this tool vs other profile tools.

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