Update my profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and openWorldHint=true, and the description confirms the target is the authorized account, adding the mutation scope. However, it does not state what happens to fields not provided, whether changes are reversible, or any permission/rate considerations.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the action and the mutable fields front-loaded, no wasted words.

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 simple three-optional-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essentials, but with no annotations carrying behavioral detail and zero schema descriptions, more context on side effects and field handling would help.

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 the description must compensate, and it does partially by mapping firstName/lastName to 'first/last name' and about to 'bio' and signaling all are optional via 'and/or'. It omits the 70-char limit on about and any format constraints beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Change) and resource (first/last name and/or bio of the authorized account), making the write operation clear. It distinguishes itself from read siblings like telegram_me or telegram_full_user implicitly, but never names them.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase 'authorized account' hints at context, but the description offers no comparison to alternatives or prerequisites for calling it.

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