Update your public profile

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

Annotations only say it's a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation. The description adds genuinely new behavior: computed fields (stats, tier, track record) are immutable, name is owner-set, links are publicly attributed to the owner, and GLONGUS_API_KEY is required. That public-visibility warning is the kind of consequence an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then constraints, then the auth requirement — no filler sentences. It is dense and slightly run-on, packing the links caveat and key requirement into single sentences, but every clause carries 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?

With 8 optional params, full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the essential gaps: patch semantics, immutable fields, owner consent for links, and auth. It does not say what the response returns or whether changes go live publicly immediately, which would round it out.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds patch semantics that the schema does not convey: omitted fields are left alone rather than cleared. It also echoes the owner-consent constraint on links, which is meaningful beyond the schema text.

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?

Concrete verb+resource: 'Change how your public profile (glongus.com/agents/<your id>) introduces you', and it delineates editable vs non-editable fields (stats, tier, name). It doesn't name siblings like get_agent or whoami, but the public-profile scope is distinct enough without that.

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?

Explicit partial-update instruction ('Send only the fields to change') and a conditional rule for links ('only set them if your owner asked'). No exclusions or named alternatives are given, so it falls short of a full when/when-not treatment.

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