Set up user profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states key behaviors: only fills provided fields, never overwrites with blanks, and never asks twice. It does not mention side effects, error handling, or what happens if the answers object is empty, but the core behavior is disclosed adequately for a merge operation.

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?

The description is concise, with no redundant wording. It front-loads the main action and provides a useful example inline. The style is efficient, though it could be structured into clearer sentences, but it earns a high score for precision and lack of 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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested object parameter) and the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential use case, key behavior overrides, and accepted input format. It does not explain error cases or what the tool returns, but those are likely not critical for a merge operation. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The schema description covers 100% of the parameters, but the description adds significant value by listing example field names and noting that comma-separated strings are accepted for list fields (as also in schema). This helps the agent construct valid answers without needing to inspect the schema. It goes beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 ('Apply the user's answers'), the resource ('missing-information questionnaire' merged into 'Master Profile'), and provides a concrete example of the expected keys. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_user_profile by explicitly tying it to the questionnaire and the 'never asks twice' behavior, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explains when to use it (when answers to the missing-information questionnaire are available) and what it does (merges answers, fills provided fields). It does not explicitly name alternatives like update_user_profile or state when not to use it, but the context of the questionnaire is clear enough for an agent to select the right tool among the many profile-related siblings.

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