update_my_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the partial update behavior (PATCH, send only fields to change). However, it does not mention authentication requirements, what happens to omitted fields, or any side effects beyond the scope of the update. The metadata parameter has a note in the schema about null response, but that is not in the tool description.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys purpose, HTTP method, and usage guidance with 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?

While the schema covers all parameters and an output schema exists, the description is minimal. It does not explicitly state that the profile belongs to the authenticated user (though 'my' implies it), nor does it mention prerequisites or error conditions. For a tool with 10 optional parameters and no annotations, the description could provide more context.

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 description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a detailed description. The tool description adds no additional information about parameters beyond what the schema provides. With high coverage, baseline is 3.

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 user profile', and specifies the HTTP method PATCH plus guidance to send only changed fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_my_profile (read-only) and other mutation tools.

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 implicitly says when to use the tool (to update the current user's profile) and provides the PATCH guidance. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, but given the sibling set, the usage context is clear and no exclusion is needed.

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