remote_profile_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the merging/replace semantics, how remove_fields works, and the constraint that required fields must remain valid. It does not mention errors, idempotency, or return values, but the disclosed behaviors are meaningful for a mutation tool.

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 three short, front-loaded sentences. No redundancies or irrelevant details. Each sentence adds value: behavior, mode toggle, and removal/validation.

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 (4 params, no annotations, output schema exists), the description covers the essential update operations and constraints. It lacks explicit error conditions or nonexistent-profile behavior, but the output schema likely documents return values. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for effective use.

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?

The schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates well. It explicitly links 'changes' to merging, 'replace' to full replacement, and 'remove_fields' to deleting optional settings. It also clarifies validation via required fields. 'name' is self-explanatory, and all parameters are effectively given semantic meaning.

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 a profile by merging changes, or fully replace it with replace=true.' It specifies the verb (update), resource (profile), and two distinct behaviors. This differentiates it from sibling tools like create, delete, and rename.

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 gives usage context by explaining when to use merge vs. replace mode and instructs to use remove_fields for deleting optional settings. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or references to sibling alternatives, but the provided guidance is clear for straightforward update scenarios.

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