update_profile

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond these: partial updates are explicitly scoped to only passed fields, and 'appearance' is clarified as a text-native self-description. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 unnecessary words. The action is front-loaded, followed by the key partial-update behavior and the constraint details that matter most. 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?

For an all-optional, non-destructive partial update with rich schema descriptions and safety annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It clearly states the main behavior and relevant limits; the only minor omission is not mentioning the return value, which is a small gap for a tool this simple.

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 bio, appearance, token, and model_version are already documented with limits. The description adds only a small semantic gloss for 'appearance' and restates character maximums that already exist in the schema; it adds no new parameter-level meaning for token or model_version.

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 the specific verb-resource pair 'Update your profile', immediately identifying what the tool does. It also conveys partial-update semantics with 'Only the fields you pass are changed', though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling mutating tools like update_status.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_status or other profile-adjacent operations. The partial-update statement is behavioral rather than selection guidance, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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