update_profile

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

The description discloses the partial-update behavior (omitted fields are left as-is), which is important. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden; it is accurate and not misleading, though it doesn't mention return values 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 concise sentences, front-loaded with verb and object, and no filler. The structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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 the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation, the description covers everything an agent needs: what to update, how to handle partial updates, and content expectations. No gaps remain.

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 descriptions already clarify each parameter ('title' and 'description'). The tool description adds context by indicating that parameters are optional and for partial updates, which slightly enhances clarity beyond 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 clearly states the action ('Update') and the target resource ('creator's Topmate profile title (tagline) and/or bio'). It is distinct from sibling tools like update_questions, which target a different resource.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on partial updates ('Only pass the fields that should change — omitted fields are left as-is') and content quality ('Pass final, polished content, not rough notes'). This is actionable and clear.

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