Update Profile

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

The description adds behavioral traits beyond annotations: 'omitted fields are left as-is', 'Pass null to clear a field', and detailed guidance on summary quality. Annotations only indicate idempotent=true; the description significantly enriches the agent's understanding.

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 front-loaded with the core action, but the summary writing guide is quite lengthy and could be condensed without losing essential guidance. Some repetition exists, making it less concise than optimal.

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 there is no output schema and annotations are minimal, the description fully covers update semantics, prerequisites, and field-specific writing standards. It is complete for an AI agent to use 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds important semantic context: partial update behavior and null-as-clear. This goes beyond individual parameter descriptions, though the schema already describes each field sufficiently.

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 'Update the user's Remoet profile' and specifies that only changed fields need to be provided, with omitted fields left as-is. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_profile and other update tools.

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 gives clear context: 'Always read the current profile first with get_profile' and advises to ask the user when source data is missing. It includes writing guidelines for the summary field. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use the tool, which prevents a score of 5.

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