Update My Unsplash Profile

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and the description adds behavior beyond annotations: 'Only the fields you pass are changed' clarifies partial-update semantics, and the OAuth prerequisite explains the invocation flow. The phrase 'Not read-only' restates the annotation rather than adding new information, but there is no contradiction, and the added context helps an agent act correctly.

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?

Four short, purposeful sentences with the core function front-loaded ('Update the authenticated user's own profile…'), followed by carefully chosen behavioral and prerequisite details. It is tight and scannable; only the final 'Not read-only' redirects content also present in annotations, and that redundancy is minor.

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 the tool has 8 optional parameters, full schema coverage, and valid annotations, the description together with the schema covers the essential needs: what is mutated, the partial-update contract, and the setup requirement. There is no output schema, so the rubric does not require return-value documentation here; the only real gap is lack of an explicit note on what the response contains (e.g., the updated profile object), which is modest for this scenario.

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% — every parameter has a per-property description ('New bio text.', 'New Instagram username.' etc.) — so the baseline is 3. The description's 'Only the fields you pass are changed' reinforces the all-parameters-optional nature, but it doesn't layer new semantic detail on any individual parameter beyond what the schema already gives.

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?

The first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Update the authenticated user's own Unsplash profile'). The scope is crystallized by 'own' and 'authenticated', which unambiguously separates it from the read sibling unsplash_get_my_profile and from the photo/collection update tools, so an agent doesn't need to open the schema to understand which object is being mutated.

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 clear when-to-use context and an explicit prerequisite ('Requires OAuth sign-in — run npx @hanoak/unsplash-mcp-server login first'), which conventionally stands in for the supported 'when' guidance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use (e.g., a pointer to get_my_profile for reads), so it stops short of top-tier with no exclusions.

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