update_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: no auth requirements, no reversibility, and notably no mention that an empty string deletes a field (that behavior lives only in the schema).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with an inline field list; no wasted prose. The trailing ellipsis slightly undercuts the enumeration but keeps it short.

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?

With an output schema, full param coverage and safety annotations, most needs are met. Still thin for a mutation tool: it doesn't clarify the destructive delete behavior in its own text or route the agent to get_profile first, leaving those to the schema.

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% and the nested 'fields' object documents the delete-on-empty-string semantics and the get_profile reference, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's inline examples (name, address, Kundennummer, benefit type...) add color but no syntax or format detail beyond it.

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 a specific verb (set/change) and resource (profile fields) and enumerates the field domain, which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_profile, though the schema points there.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb: use this to modify an existing profile. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. login) and no mention of the read counterpart get_profile as a prerequisite step.

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