user_updateProfile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It adds 'Returns confirmation on success' which provides output context absent from schemas. However, it omits critical behavioral details: error handling if user doesn't exist, whether partial updates are allowed (implied by 'or' but not explicit), atomicity, or side effects.

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 efficient sentences with no redundancy. Front-loaded with action verb, colon-separated list for scannable parameters, and return value statement. 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?

Given empty input schema (0 properties), no annotations, and no output schema, the tool definition is underspecified. While the description lists updatable fields and mentions return value, it lacks error scenarios, field validation rules, or API constraints expected for a user mutation operation with minimal structured metadata.

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 0 parameters in the schema (empty properties object), the baseline is 4. The description adds specific parameter names (firstName, lastName, email) not present in the schema, providing necessary semantic context. However, it lacks type information, constraints, or required/optional status that a complete schema would provide.

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?

Description clearly states the verb (Update), resource (profile of existing Operaton user), and specific fields affected (firstName, lastName, email). The phrase 'existing Operaton user' distinguishes from user_create, while listing profile fields distinguishes from user_updatePassword (password) and user_getProfile (read-only retrieval).

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 implicitly guides usage by specifying 'existing' user (distinguishing from user_create) and specific profile fields (distinguishing from user_updatePassword). However, it lacks explicit when/when-not guidance or direct references to sibling alternatives.

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