goalstory_update_self_user

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 mentions that updating 'about' data involves guiding the user through questions, which adds some context about the interactive nature of that parameter. However, it lacks details on permissions required, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 concise and well-structured in two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds specific guidance for one parameter. There's no unnecessary repetition or fluff, making it efficient.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication needs, side effects, or what the tool returns. The parameter guidance is minimal, and there's no mention of sibling tools or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it implies that 'about' involves guided questions for gathering motivations and beliefs, which slightly elaborates on the schema's description. However, it doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or constraints for any parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: updating the user's profile with specific fields (name, visibility preferences, personal context). It uses specific verbs ('update', 'guide') and identifies the resource ('user's profile'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'goalstory_update_goal' or 'goalstory_update_step', which also perform updates on different resources.

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 provides minimal usage guidance. It mentions that updating 'about' data involves guiding the user through questions, but it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'goalstory_read_self_user' for reading the profile or other update tools for different resources). No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is included.

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