update_profile_summary

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 and mentions a character limit (max 2600 characters), which adds useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't cover other important aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, whether the update is reversible, or what happens to existing summary content, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 clear sections: purpose statement, prerequisite, and parameter/return explanation. It's front-loaded with the main action. The only minor issue is that 'Returns success status' could be integrated more smoothly, but overall it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but with an output schema, the description does a good job covering the essential aspects: purpose, prerequisite, parameter details, and return indication. It could be more complete by addressing authentication or error scenarios, but it's substantially adequate for the tool's complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description adds significant value by explaining the parameter's purpose ('New summary text') and constraint ('max 2600 characters'). This compensates well for the schema gap, though it doesn't mention formatting requirements or examples, preventing a perfect score.

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 action ('Update') and target ('profile summary/about section'), providing specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_profile_headline' or 'update_profile_contact_info' that also modify profile sections, so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.

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 explicit context about when to use it ('Requires Playwright browser automation to be enabled'), which is crucial guidance. However, it doesn't mention when NOT to use it or alternatives (e.g., when browser automation isn't available, or if other profile update tools might be more appropriate), preventing a perfect score.

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