user_update_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses partial-update semantics ('只更新传入字段'), the default user_id='local', and the return shape {updated, profile}. It omits whether the profile must already exist, error/failure conditions, and permission 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?

Front-loads the core action, then uses clean Args/Returns sections with no wasted prose. Appropriately sized for a 7-parameter mutation.

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 7-param mutation with a nested settings object and no annotations, the description covers partial-update behavior and the return value but is silent on existence preconditions, failure modes, and permissions. It gives an agent enough to attempt the call but not to predict edge-case outcomes.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names all seven parameters and groups six as 'fields to update' plus user_id with its default, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it provides no type, format, or allowed values for fields like risk_profile and investment_style, so compensation is only partial.

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: '更新本地用户 profile' (update local user profile), which an agent can distinguish from user_create_profile and user_get_profile. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast those siblings, so differentiation is implied by the verb rather than stated.

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 when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternatives (user_create_profile for creation, user_get_profile for reads). The parenthetical about only updating passed fields describes behavior, not the conditions that should route an agent here.

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