edit_profile

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses PATCH-like partial-update semantics ('others remain unchanged'), which prevents an agent from fearing it will blank unspecified fields. It does not cover auth/permission needs beyond the phrase 'authenticated user's', reversibility, or error behavior.

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 tight sentences with the mutation's scope front-loaded and the partial-update guarantee immediately after. No filler, no redundancy.

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?

For a 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and the partial-update contract but omits what the response returns, validation/failure behavior, and any auth caveats. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

All 10 parameters are documented at 100% schema coverage, so the schema already carries full semantics. The description adds no field-level meaning, syntax, or format constraints beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (Edit) and resource (authenticated user's CoderLegion profile), clearly distinguishable from get_profile in the sibling list. It stops short of naming the read counterpart explicitly, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The partial-update note ('Only specified fields are updated') describes mechanics rather than the conditions under which an agent should choose this tool over get_profile or others.

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