update_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Requires API key' for authentication, which adds value, but lacks details on rate limits, whether updates are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and efficiently lists updatable fields in a single sentence, followed by a prerequisite note. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the authentication requirement.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete for a simple update tool but lacks details on behavioral traits like side effects or response format. It covers the basic purpose and authentication need, but gaps remain for an agent to use it confidently without trial and error.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying that 'other profile fields' might exist, but doesn't specify them or provide syntax details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 your participant profile') and resource ('on the402.ai'), specifying what fields can be changed ('display name, description, or other profile fields'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_participant' (read vs. write) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_service'.

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 when profile changes are needed and mentions a prerequisite ('Requires API key'), but doesn't specify when to use this versus alternatives like 'manage_plan' or 'update_service', nor does it provide exclusions or context about when not to use it.

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