update_user_profile

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation), destructiveHint=false (not destructive), and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it updates fields like bio and city, but does not disclose behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide—such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens with null values (though schema covers null clearing). 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?

The description is a single sentence of 14 words that immediately conveys the action and scope. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word contributes to understanding. No redundancy or fluff.

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 moderate complexity (6 optional parameters, all with schema descriptions) and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient to understand the tool's purpose and what fields can be updated. It does not explain return values or ordering, but these are covered by the output schema and parameter schema. A slight gap remains for advanced usage (e.g., clearing multiple fields simultaneously), but overall complete.

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 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description merely lists the fields without adding meaning beyond the schema (e.g., 'bio' is already described as 'Bio text (null to clear)'). For socialLinks, schema says 'key-value pairs' while description says 'social links', adding minimal extra context. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 updates the current user's profile and lists the supported fields (bio, city, country, website, social links, public visibility). It uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('user profile'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_user_profile (read) and other update_* tools that target different objects.

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 specifies it updates the 'current user' profile, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not mention when not to use it (e.g., for other users' profiles) or provide alternatives for different scenarios. No explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are given.

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