update_profile

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

The description only says the operation updates the profile and requires write permission. Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it does not explain whether unspecified fields are preserved or overwritten, whether the update is partial or full, or what the response contains.

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 brief and front-loaded: the core action appears first, followed by a necessary permission note. Both sentences earn their place. It could be considered too short given the tool's complexity, but there is no fluff or poor structural ordering.

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 13 optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the tool definition is incomplete. A caller cannot tell whether omitted fields are left unchanged or cleared, whether a response is returned, or what the expected update behavior is. The description covers only scope and permissions.

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?

With 13 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining parameter meaning or update semantics, but it does not. The phrase 'portfolio owner profile' weakly hints that fields like bio, email, and website belong to the owner, but it provides no real guidance beyond the property names already present in the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Update the portfolio owner profile.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_profile or update_project, whose resource targets are different. The addition of the write-permission requirement reinforces the intent.

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 intended use is implied by the name and description: use this when updating the portfolio owner's profile. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, such as using get_profile for reads, or clarify whether this should be used for owner-only changes versus other profile updates.

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