set_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value with merge semantics ('Only the fields you pass are changed'), clarifying partial-update behavior that annotations do not express. It says nothing about permissions or overwrite edge cases.

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 brief sentences, tightly front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the key semantic. No filler; every sentence earns its place.

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 explained, but the definition leaves 5 undocumented parameters ambiguous (e.g. what 'projects' objects expect, null vs omitted) and offers no usage context for a mutation tool. It is under-specified for a five-parameter profile upsert.

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?

All 5 parameters (skills, summary, projects, target_roles, years_experience) have 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden — yet it names no parameter and gives no format or type guidance. The only relevant clue is the generic note that unpassed fields are unchanged.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Create/update your profile') with clear upsert semantics that distinguish it from get_profile. It does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings like get_profile or match_job_to_profile, so it stops short of 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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as get_profile for reads. The only usage signal is implicit in 'Create/update'.

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