update_profile_policy

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

Without annotations, the description reveals key steps (loading, overriding, signing, publishing) and return values. However, it lacks details on error conditions, reversibility, or required permissions, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 extremely concise and well-structured, front-loading the main action and progressively adding details. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.

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 the existence of an output schema and the complexity of 9 parameters, the description covers the main workflow and return type but omits prerequisites (e.g., must have a published card) and error handling, limiting completeness.

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 description does not explain any of the 9 parameters beyond listing them in the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, it fails to add semantic value, leaving the agent to rely solely on parameter names.

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 action: updating card fields and re-publishing. It specifies the process (loads, applies overrides, signs, publishes) and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning that persistence opt-in is handled via a different tool.

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 implies usage for modifying an existing published profile, noting that fields not supplied are preserved and that persistence cannot be withdrawn here. It indirectly guides users to use 'disable_persistence' for that purpose, but does not explicitly contrast with 'publish_profile' for creation.

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