set_race_profile

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description still adds real value: '(stored locally)' clarifies there is no remote side effect, and 'Only the fields given are changed' discloses merge semantics rather than replace semantics. It stops short of saying what happens to omitted fields on a fresh profile or whether any validation is applied to division.

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 purpose and storage note are front-loaded, then the parameter details follow in a tight sequence with no filler. The division list is long but earns its place since the schema carries no enum.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the local-mutation nature is disclosed. However, for a four-parameter mutation with zero schema coverage, leaving race_date's format (ISO date? natural language?) and location's meaning unaddressed is a real gap an agent could stumble on.

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% and all four parameters are undocumented in the schema, so the description has to compensate. It does well for two of them (the full division enumeration, goal as free text with example values) and for null/omission behavior, but 'location' and especially 'race_date' get no format or constraint guidance at all.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Set the athlete's race details', and the sibling get_race_profile makes the write-vs-read split inferable from the verb alone. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling, but a competent agent can distinguish the two without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the mutation verb and by 'Only the fields given are changed', which tells the agent it can call it for partial updates. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_race_profile or when a profile must exist first, so the guidance is only adequate.

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