update_profile_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavioral traits: writes are 'safe' with 'no data loss', and structural changes are reconciled under 'optimistic locking'. However, it omits what happens on a version conflict, what error surfaces, or the authorization requirements for a mutation tool.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the safety guarantee plus reconciliation target are front-loaded. It is efficiently sized, though the second sentence could have been spent on the missing parameter or concurrency-conflict information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a 4-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations the description is insufficient — parameter meaning, conflict handling, and sibling differentiation from append_note are all absent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely doesn't. 'Optimistic locking' hints that base_version is a concurrency token, but md_append, json_patch, and agent_name are never explained — their formats, expected content, or interaction (e.g., whether both may be supplied at once) remain undefined.

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?

States specific verbs and resources: updates structured profile attributes in StoneWay.json and appends notes to StoneWay.md, with an explicit reconciliation behavior. It is distinguishable from get_profile_context, but it never clarifies its relationship to the sibling append_note, which appears to overlap with the md_append path.

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 when-to-use guidance is given. Nothing tells the agent when to choose this over append_note for note-taking, or why one would patch JSON versus append markdown. The conditions that select this tool over its siblings are left entirely to inference.

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