Set your business details

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

Annotations declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write, and the description adds the key cross-server behavior ('Saved to the shared profile every other server reads'). It does not state whether existing profile values are overwritten or merged on a repeat call, which matters given idempotentHint=false, but the shared-persistence detail is genuine context beyond the annotations.

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?

Three compact sentences with the scope claim front-loaded, followed by the persistence behavior and the calling guidance. No sentence is redundant with the schema and nothing is padded.

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 a 16-parameter, name-only-required write with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description conveys scope, shared-profile effect and call ordering. It stops short of clarifying overwrite/merge semantics or auth requirements, a minor gap given the annotations already establish the safety profile.

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 16 parameters in detail, including aliases (vat/tax_rate/vat_rate) and the email/phone caution. The description only names field categories rather than adding syntax or format meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Set') plus resource ('business profile') and enumerates the exact fields it manages (name, address, VAT id, bank details, defaults). It explicitly claims the distinguishing scope 'The ONE business profile for the whole suite', which separates it from sibling set-style tools like profile_set, contacts_set and docx_business_set.

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?

'Call it once, first.' gives clear ordering/timing guidance and implies it should not be repeatedly invoked. However, it never explicitly contrasts this tool with the nearby profile_set or docx_business_set tools, so an agent must infer which 'set' tool applies in which case.

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