update_profile

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

No annotations provided, but the description fully discloses behavior: overwrites existing, creates if absent, never fails (unless error). Return structure with success/error is also described, leaving no ambiguity about 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?

Concise, well-structured with Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds essential information, no redundancy. Front-loaded with the core action and sibling comparison.

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 one complex parameter and no output schema provided, the description is remarkably complete: it explains the behavior relative to sibling, specifies how to prepare the parameter, and describes the return value. Enough 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 single parameter 'profile' lacks a description in the schema (0% coverage), but the tool description adds value by explaining it should be the structured profile extracted from the CV and instructing the agent to do extraction before calling. This compensates for the schema gap, though it doesn't detail every nested property.

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 tool saves/overwrites a structured profile, explicitly distinguishes from setup_profile by noting it overwrites without failing and creates if none exists. Verb+resource+scope are specific and 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?

Provides explicit step: 'Read and extract the CV into profile before calling' and contrasts with setup_profile, telling the agent when to use this over its sibling. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are clear.

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