Edit your profile

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses that the change is public immediately and that confirm:true is required. This complements the destructiveHint and openWorldHint annotations without contradiction.

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?

Two tightly written sentences deliver the core purpose and a critical behavioral warning with no filler. Information is front-loaded: first sentence says what it does, second sentence says the key side effect and requirement.

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 description plus the fully detailed schema provide enough for an agent to call the tool correctly. It lacks explicit error or confirmation-flow details, but the schema and annotations cover the safety profile and parameter meanings, making the definition complete for this scope.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description only mentions display name, bio, and metadata fields, which maps to some parameters but adds no semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb ('Change') with a specific resource ('your profile') and enumerates the key editable aspects (display name, bio, metadata fields). It also clarifies the partial-update behavior, so there is no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 important usage context: only passed arguments are changed, and the action is public immediately, requiring confirm:true. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but there are no sibling tools for profile editing, so the guidance is appropriate.

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