profile_note

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description goes further by specifying that a passed field overwrites the old value, an omitted field persists, and a call with neither optional field performs only a read. This transparently discloses the mutation semantics and the no-mutation path.

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?

Three short sentences with each carrying distinct information: the core purpose, the read condition, and the parameter/overwrite semantics. No repetition of schema details and no unnecessary fluff.

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?

The tool is simple, annotations are rich, and invocation behavior is fully explained. However, since there is no output schema, the description does not explicitly state what a read operation returns (e.g., the note and title structure). This is a minor but real gap for an agent that relies on expected return values.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by connecting the optional parameters to behavior: omitting both yields a read, and each omitted field preserves its prior value. This reinforces and extends the schema's 'omit to keep' descriptions.

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 opens with 'Read or write a profile's note', giving a specific verb and resource. It clearly differentiates this tool from siblings like profile_tags or list_profiles by targeting the note content, and it explicitly explains the read versus write modes based on parameter presence.

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?

It states that omitting title and note triggers a read, and passing a field overwrites while omitting keeps the existing value. This gives clear when-to-use guidance for both modes, but it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this one, so it misses a 5.

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