publish_profile

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

With no annotations, the description covers behavioral traits: identity layer source, operator-controlled fields, return value format, default persistence opt-in (no opt-in, GDPR-default), and environment variable requirement. It does not mention failure modes or whether publishing overwrites an existing card.

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 three paragraphs, front-loaded with the main action, and covers key points without excessive verbosity. It could be slightly more structured but is efficient.

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 10 parameters, 1 required, and an output schema mentioned, the description covers high-level behavior, identity, persistence, and env requirement. However, it lacks parameter-level details and does not explain the 'operator-controlled' concept fully, leaving some gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain individual parameters. It only mentions 'name' indirectly and refers to 'other fields' as operator-controlled. No detail on skills, url, version, provider, etc.

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's function: 'Build, sign, and publish your agent card to the directory.' It specifies the verb (publish), resource (agent card), and distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_profile or get_profile.

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 context: identity comes from local profile, persistence opt-in is separate, and requires SYNPAREIA_NETWORK_URL. It implies this is for publishing but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with alternatives like update_profile_policy.

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