set_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: the 500-character cap, that an empty string clears the value, and the visibility scope (other sessions, admin app, viewer). Only error/rejection behavior is left unstated.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core action front-loaded, followed by parenthetical constraints and a short visibility note. Every clause carries information with no filler.

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 a single-parameter setter with annotations covering idempotency and safety, the description covers purpose, limits, clearing semantics, and visibility. No output schema is needed here, though error handling and whether overwriting a live description is reversible are unstated.

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% and the maxLength=500 constraint is already in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining that an empty string removes the description, a semantic behavior the schema does not express.

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?

States a specific verb ('Changes') and resource ('my account's profile description'), and clarifies that the tool sets the description field specifically, which separates it from the sibling set_name. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, so it falls just short of the top band.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites or alternatives (e.g., set_name for the name field), and no when-not condition. The only usage-adjacent detail is the empty-string removal behavior, which is operational rather than routing guidance.

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