update_profile

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

Annotations only declare non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world, so the description carries most of the weight and does so well: it discloses partial-update merge semantics, the empty-string clearing convention, character limits, and the real side effect that changing the username breaks old t.me links. It omits what happens on validation failure (e.g. username taken without dry_run) and never states that dry_run defaults to true, which is the key trap for an agent.

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-loaded with the action and mutable fields, then rules, then limits, then the side effect and dry_run. Dense and mostly waste-free, though cramming limits and clearing rules into one clause makes it slightly harder to scan than a broken-out list.

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?

A mutation tool with no output schema and no annotation depth, yet the definition covers partial updates, clearing, validation constraints, an irreversible-ish side effect, and the safe-preview path. It would be complete with an explicit statement that dry_run defaults to true so writes require setting it false.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it maps 'bio' to the about parameter, gives both limits (70/140), constrains username to 5-32, explains the empty-string clear for about and last_name, and defines dry_run as a preview plus availability check. Only first_name is left implicit via 'names 64 chars'.

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 plus resource and enumerates the exact mutable fields (name, bio, @username), which cleanly separates it from get_profile (read), set_profile_photo (photo), and the privacy siblings. An agent can route to it without opening the schema.

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?

Usage context is clear from the field list and the dry_run preview note, and the partial-update rule ('omitted fields stay unchanged') tells the agent it does not need to resend the whole profile. It never names an explicit alternative or a when-not case, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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