update_operator

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the verification-link side effect, the free-sats promo requirement, and the need for an operator key, which are all important behavioral details. It does not describe error handling or response structure, but that is acceptable for a simple update.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and editable fields, then adds the verification-link caveat and the operator-key requirement, both of which are essential.

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?

For a two-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, mutable fields, authentication requirement, and side effects. It does not explain failure behavior or verification status result, but that is not necessary for invoking the tool correctly.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description mostly restates 'email' and 'display name' and adds promotional context, but it does not introduce significantly new parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource, 'Update operator profile,' and enumerates the exact editable fields: email and display name. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like register_operator and set_operator_key, which handle creation and credential changes.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool: setting an email for the free-sats promo and/or changing the display name. It also notes the operator key requirement, but it does not explicitly state exclusions or name an alternative tool for edge cases.

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