preview_profile_update

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does convey the two most important traits: the operation is a non-mutating preview and it is feature-gated per provider. It stops short of the important behaviors for a preview tool — what the preview returns, whether it produces a confirmation token/expiry consumed by execute_confirmed_mutation, and whether the preview can fail for unsupported fields.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the gating constraint second — no filler. Its brevity is efficient, though it comes at the cost of the parameter and hand-off detail noted elsewhere.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, 0% schema coverage, and a nested changes array, the description leaves too much unsaid. Critically, it never explains how the preview relates to execute_confirmed_mutation, which is the natural next step in a preview/confirm mutation workflow.

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 0% for the two required parameters, so the description must compensate and does not: it never mentions `provider`, the `changes` array, the set/remove `operation` semantics, or the 25-item cap. An agent learns nothing about parameter meaning beyond what the raw JSON schema already shows.

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 gives a verb and resource ("Preview a profile mutation"), but "profile mutation" is abstract and the tool sits among many far more specific siblings (preview_resume_update, preview_skills_update, preview_visibility_contact_update). It does not explain what this generic preview covers that those targeted previews do not, so an agent cannot confidently distinguish them.

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 gating condition ("disabled by default and available only when the provider advertises an approved mutation capability") is a real prerequisite that implies calling discover_provider_capabilities first. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this generic profile preview over the section-specific preview_* siblings, nor any exclusion stated.

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