update_profile_headline

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the browser automation requirement (important behavioral context) and mentions the 220-character limit for the headline parameter. However, it doesn't describe authentication needs, rate limits, whether the update is reversible, or what happens on failure. The 'Returns success status' is vague about output format.

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 appropriately sized with three distinct sections: purpose statement, prerequisite, and parameter/return documentation. Each sentence earns its place. However, the 'Args:' and 'Returns' formatting could be more integrated, and the purpose statement is somewhat terse ('Update profile headline.' could be slightly more descriptive).

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, but with an output schema present, the description is moderately complete. It covers the prerequisite and parameter constraint, but lacks details about authentication, error conditions, and what 'success status' entails. The output schema existence reduces the need to describe return values, but more behavioral context would help.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds crucial semantic information: the 'headline' parameter is 'New headline text' with a 'max 220 characters' constraint. This provides meaning beyond the bare schema type. However, it doesn't mention format requirements (e.g., plain text vs HTML) or validation rules beyond length.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('profile headline'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update_profile_summary' by specifying the exact profile field being modified. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other profile update tools beyond naming the specific field.

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 provides one explicit usage guideline: 'Requires Playwright browser automation to be enabled.' This is a clear prerequisite. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_profile_summary' or other profile modification tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or complementary tools.

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