Update Profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the at-least-one-field requirement, but says nothing about what happens to unspecified fields (partial vs full replace) or why the operation is non-idempotent per the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the resource stated first and the calling constraint immediately after. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 not be explained, and the mutation risk is covered by annotations. The only remaining gap is whether unmentioned fields are preserved or cleared on update, which an agent would want to know for a partial-update tool.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage the baseline is 3, and the description goes beyond the schema by imposing a cross-parameter constraint (at least one of name or avatarUrl) that the schema does not express — required is empty and there is no anyOf. This meaningfully changes how an agent must call the tool.

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 and resource: updating 'current user's profile information', which is distinguishable from siblings like update_settings or update_workspace. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but 'current user's profile' is a narrowing scope that makes the target 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?

The 'Requires at least one of name or avatarUrl' clause is a precondition, not a when-to-use rule, and no sibling (e.g. current_user, update_settings) is referenced as an alternative. Usage context is only implied by the word 'current user'.

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