update_agent_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. However, the description never says whether this is a partial merge or a full replace, nor that omitted fields are preserved — critical behavior for a mutation with 0 required parameters and 11 optional fields. It also omits that some fields are cleared by passing an empty string.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the 'such as' phrasing leaves the field list open-ended when the schema is actually exhaustive.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and the schema carries all parameter detail. But for a self-modifying, destructive-flagged mutation of 11 optional fields, it should state the update semantics (merge vs replace) and whether the target is strictly the caller. That gap keeps it at the minimum-viable level.

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%, so all 11 parameters are already documented in the schema (including the empty-string-clears behavior for model and callback_url). The description only reinforces four of them ('role, capabilities, responsibility zone, and working hours'), adding no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 applies.

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 (Update) plus the resource scoped to the caller ('the calling agent's profile'), which implicitly separates it from the sibling register_sub_agent / list_sub_agents tools. It names representative fields, so the agent knows what is editable. No explicit sibling callout, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this versus register_sub_agent or list_sub_agents, and no preconditions (e.g. 'only affects the authenticated agent, not other agents'). Usage is only implied by the phrase 'the calling agent's profile'.

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