Set profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden and does well by disclosing the merge behavior, the non-destructive 'never clobbers' property, and the explicit confirm requirement with rationale. It does not detail return values or error handling, but these are less critical 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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and purpose, then adds a critical safety note. Every clause adds value, making it appropriately concise.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and lack of annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, and safety confirmation. It omits details like maximum lengths (already in schema) and return values (not needed without output schema), but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool.

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?

The schema covers only 50% of parameters (confirm and avatarAsset have descriptions). The description compensates by explicitly naming displayName, bio, and avatarAsset in human terms and explains the confirm parameter's purpose. It adds semantic meaning beyond the schema's terse field names.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('Bluesky profile'), listing the exact fields (display name, bio, avatar image). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which focus on content creation or asset management, not profile settings.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: it merges with the existing profile, avoids clobbering, and requires confirm because it changes public account data. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but sibling tools are unrelated, making this the obvious choice for profile updates.

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