auth_update_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds only the conditional requirement that currentPassword be supplied with password, which is already in the schema; it says nothing about whether omitted fields are preserved (partial update semantics), whether a password change invalidates sessions, or what permissions/auth state are required.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and object, followed by the updatable surface and the one conditional rule. Tight and readable, though the field enumeration duplicates schema content rather than adding new information.

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?

For an 8-parameter mutation with a nested object and no output schema, the description covers what can be changed but not the important semantics: whether this is a partial or full replace, what happens to unlisted fields, or what is returned. Adequate as a pointer, incomplete as a contract.

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%, so every one of the 8 parameters is already documented, including the currentPassword/password pairing and the quiet-hours default. The description's field list largely restates the schema, and it says nothing about the nested preferences object's expected keys or merge behavior. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: updating the authenticated user's own profile, and enumerates which fields can change. It implicitly disambiguates from members_update (other users) and notification_preferences_update, but never names those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 phrase 'authenticated user's profile' implies it should be used for self-service edits rather than admin edits of other members. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the alternative tools, leaving the choice to inference.

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