users_modify_current

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it specifies the endpoint is user-scoped and does not accept `audit_reason`, and it discloses the return shape. Since annotations already indicate it's a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false), the extra details about the endpoint limitation and return format provide meaningful transparency. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise and well-structured with bold labels (Purpose, When to use, Note, Returns). Every sentence adds value: the purpose is upfront, use cases are specific, the note clarifies a limitation, and the return shape is mentioned. No filler or redundant information, achieving an efficient size for an agent to parse.

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 that the tool has only 3 optional parameters, no required parameters, and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the purpose, appropriate usage, a key constraint (no audit_reason), and the expected return shape. The presence of an output schema means the returned fields don't need exhaustive explanation, but the description still previews the projected shape, making it self-contained.

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 input schema already covers all 3 parameters (avatar, banner, username) with descriptions, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description's 'rename the bot, change avatar/banner' maps directly to these parameters but adds little beyond what the schema provides. Therefore, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not significantly enrich parameter understanding.

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 the authenticated bot/user profile' with the specific endpoint `PATCH /users/@me`. It uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('bot/user profile'), and it differentiates from siblings like `users_get_current` and `members_modify_current` by focusing on the current user's profile.

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 clear 'When to use' section listing concrete use cases: 'Rename the bot, change avatar/banner.' It also notes a key limitation ('does NOT accept audit_reason') which helps set expectations. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives when the tool is not appropriate, such as using `members_modify_current` for guild-specific profile changes, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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