set_profile

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the burden. It explains partial update behavior and field constraints (e.g., 4-digit years, USD). However, it does not disclose error handling, idempotency, confirmation steps, or whether the update is atomic. The description is adequate but incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 paragraph that gets straight to the point. Every sentence adds necessary context, though the phrase 'capture only what the user volunteers, never invent values' could be seen as slightly verbose but adds ethical guidance. Overall, it is efficient and well-structured.

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 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers all parameter semantics, usage guidelines, and update behavior. It lacks details on the response format (e.g., returns updated profile or success message) and potential errors. However, for a straightforward mutation tool, it is largely 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It explains each parameter clearly: 'birth year and retirement target year are 4-digit years,' 'target net worth is in USD,' 'risk tolerance is one of conservative/moderate/aggressive,' 'notes is free-form.' It also states all fields are optional, adding critical value 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?

Clearly states 'Update the user's profile' and specifically mentions partial updates. It differentiates from siblings like 'show_profile' (view) and 'add_*' (create) tools. The description explicitly lists all fields and their semantics, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear guidance: 'Partial updates — only provided fields are changed' and 'All fields are optional; capture only what the user volunteers, never invent values.' This explains when to use the tool and how to handle inputs. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the sibling tools context implies reading is done via 'show_profile'.

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