capability_upsert_self

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'Simpan atau perbarui' (Save or update), implying a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, potential side effects, or rate limits. The return statement mentions 'JSON status update + profile terbaru' (latest profile), but lacks details on format or error handling.

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 concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one describing the return. It's front-loaded with the main action. However, the second sentence could be more integrated, and there's minor redundancy in stating the return type.

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 complexity (a mutation tool with nested parameters in 'params'), no annotations, and an output schema exists (which might cover return values), the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial details: parameter guidance, behavioral context (e.g., permissions, idempotency), and doesn't fully leverage the output schema to explain what 'JSON status update + profile terbaru' entails, leaving gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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 provides no information about parameters, while the input schema has 1 parameter ('params') with 0% description coverage in the schema itself (the schema's properties have descriptions, but the top-level 'params' lacks one). The description doesn't compensate for this gap by explaining what 'params' should contain, such as the capability card details to save or update.

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 ('Simpan atau perbarui' meaning 'Save or update') and the resource ('capability card agent ini' meaning 'this agent's capability card'), with the context 'pada room aktif' (in the active room). It distinguishes from sibling 'capability_get_self' (read) and 'capability_remove_self' (delete), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other tools like 'agent_register' or 'capability_set_availability'.

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 minimal usage guidance: it mentions 'pada room aktif' (in the active room), implying a prerequisite of being in a room. However, it doesn't specify when to use this vs. alternatives like 'agent_register' (which might create an agent profile) or 'capability_set_availability' (which might update availability status), nor does it provide exclusions or detailed context for selection.

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