update_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the operation being a mid-run incremental change to known fields and implies a difference from save_profile's validation behavior, but it does not state whether unmentioned fields are preserved, what failure modes exist, or whether changes are persisted. This is adequate but not rich.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, followed by a concrete example scenario and a clear pointer to the sibling alternative. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter mutating tool with an output schema, the description covers the key selection and invocation context: when to call it, what it changes, and which alternative to prefer. It does not list valid profile fields or detail validation side effects, but those gaps are minor given the output schema and sibling context.

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?

The schema has a single 'fields' object with additionalProperties: true and no property descriptions, so schema coverage is 0%. The description adds that these are 'known profile fields' and that one or a few should be supplied, which gives useful meaning to the parameter. However, it does not enumerate or describe the possible field names or value types, leaving some ambiguity.

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 description states a specific verb and resource: 'Change one or a few known profile fields mid-run.' It clearly scopes the operation to incremental, mid-run edits and explicitly distinguishes itself from save_profile by naming the alternative. An agent can tell what this tool does and how it differs from its main sibling.

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 explicit usage direction: use it mid-run for a small follow-up change, and 'prefer save_profile' for initial setup because save_profile reports all validation problems at once. This directly tells the agent when to choose this tool versus the alternative.

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