sapiens_profile

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds that write actions modify the current session account, that favorite_tool toggles a star, and that invalid/taken update_username requests return {success:false,error}. It does not state persistence/reversibility of follow or favorite mutations, but the core side effects are disclosed.

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 dense but earns its length: a 15-action aggregate needs clauses for read/write grouping, routing, and ID provenance. It is front-loaded with the headline purpose before the sub-action inventory, though a bit more line structuring would improve scannability.

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 no output schema, the description covers the return shape for the main read actions (badges full list, golden_tools full list, notifications plus unread count) and the error shape for invalid username changes. It relies on session identity for the current user but never explicitly says that get/badges/golden_tools read the session user's profile, a minor gap for a profile tool.

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 92%, and the property descriptions already explain each 'action=...' mapping and where IDs come from. The main description repeats that mapping effectively but does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 opening line defines the tool as the unified user-profile aggregate and enumerates its contents (identidade + nível/XP + saldo, badges, golden tools), then lists each sub-action with a verb and target. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the areas that are NOT duplicated here (sapiens_gallery, sapiens_repertorio, etc.).

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 states when to use this tool and when to go elsewhere: large profile parts are said to have their own dedicated tools, and specific routes are given for discovering IDs (sapiens_community participants/search_users, sapiens_repertorio search_tools). This makes the decision boundary explicit rather than implied.

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