Update user profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Same merge semantics as setup_user_profile' hints at partial updates, but does not explain what that means in practice (e.g., whether arrays replace or merge, if nested objects are deep-merged). It does not disclose return values, error conditions, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a write operation without any annotation support.

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 sentences total, with the primary action front-loaded and examples kept brief. Every sentence contributes to understanding: the merge reference prevents misuse, and the usage examples ground the abstract 'updates' map. No wasted words.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., the updated profile). It also relies on the agent understanding `setup_user_profile`'s merge semantics without elaboration. For a single-parameter mutation tool, this is acceptable but leaves gaps around response formatting and edge cases (e.g., empty updates object).

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% with a minimal description ('Map of field -> new value'). The tool description adds valuable context by listing typical fields (preferredLocations, relocationPreference, reusable application answers) and clarifying the merge behavior, which helps agents infer acceptable values beyond the generic schema 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?

States the action ('Update') and resource ('specific Master Profile fields') precisely. It immediately disambiguates from the sibling `setup_user_profile` by referencing the same merge semantics, so the agent understands this is a partial update, not initial creation.

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 use cases: 'corrections or adding preferences' with concrete field examples. It implicitly distinguishes from `setup_user_profile` by referencing it, though it does not explicitly state 'use setup_user_profile for initial setup'. Context is clear, but the exclusion is not explicit.

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