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. '更新' (update) implies mutation, but the description doesn't state whether the update is partial (merging) or full replacement, whether it requires existence of the record, what happens when data is missing, or who has authorization. The schema shows data is optional fields, but behavior of the update operation itself is undisclosed.

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?

At a single short sentence, it's economical and contains zero waste. However, it's under-specified for the tool's complexity - a multi-field profile update with dozens of nested properties deserves more than three words. This is under-specification rather than genuinely good conciseness.

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?

This is a high-complexity tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description is a bare minimum that doesn't explain update semantics, success/error behavior, validation rules, or relationship to create_profile and analyze_profile siblings. For a tool with such a large nested data schema, this falls well short of adequate documentation.

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 description adds no parameter information, but the schema itself is extremely detailed with field-level Japanese descriptions for each property (bio, mbti, tone, urls, etc.). However, schema description coverage is only 50%, meaning roughly half the parameters lack descriptions - and the description doesn't compensate for that gap. The top-level id and data parameters are documented in the schema sufficiently, so the baseline is near the higher end.

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 'プロフィールを更新' (Update profile) states a clear verb+resource, which distinguishes it from creation/deletion tools like create_profile and delete_profile. However, it doesn't specify what fields or behaviors beyond the generic 'update' concept, and with siblings like update_persona, update_custom_entry, and update_career_entry, the specific profile context is only implied by the name.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_profile or update_persona. The description doesn't state whether this is a partial or full update, how the id relates to existing profiles, or when create_profile should be used instead. The context of a profile update is implied but never articulated.

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