goldhold_profile

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the tool can view or update the profile but does not describe what a view returns, whether capabilities are mutable, side effects, or any prerequisites such as authentication.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler makes this concise. The slight ambiguity of 'View or update' and the inclusion of 'capabilities' not present in the schema keep it from being perfectly precise.

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 should explain what a view returns and how the optional parameters select view versus update; it does neither. For a two-optional-parameter tool it is minimally usable, but the arg-dependent behavior is a clear gap.

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 100%, so the schema already explains display_name and description; the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond repeating those names. The mention of 'capabilities' is profile context rather than a schema property, so it does not improve parameter semantics.

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 names the resource ('agent's profile') and the two supported operations ('View or update'), and it lists relevant fields. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, and the dual verb plus the unmodeled 'capabilities' field keep it from being a 5.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over siblings such as goldhold_agents or goldhold_task_update, and no explicit statement that calling with no arguments views the profile while passing fields updates it. The intended usage is only implied by the operation phrase.

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