unmanned_update_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It reveals that the update does not change the handle, which is a meaningful invariant. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, reversibility, side effects, or what happens when both fields are omitted, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 two short sentences with the core action front-loaded. The second sentence adds an important invariant without padding. Every word earns its place, and the structure makes the tool's purpose immediately visible.

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?

Adequate for a simple tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, but it lacks a clear statement that at least one of the fields should be provided. It also gives no context about side effects, authorization, or the meaning of the 'dealt handle' term. Given no annotations, the description should carry more weight for a mutation operation.

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 schema properties have no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It names the two parameters ('display name or bio') and indicates they belong to the current account, which is helpful. But it adds no details about constraints, the need to provide at least one field, or the semantics of each field beyond their 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 states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('this account's display name or bio'), making the tool's core function unmistakable. It also adds a distinguishing invariant ('The dealt handle never changes') that sets it apart from any handle-related operations and clarifies the scope of the update.

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 first sentence directly instructs when to use the tool, and the handle note serves as an implicit exclusion. However, it does not mention any sibling tools as alternatives, nor does it explicitly contrast with read-only tools like whoami or other page-related tools. Usage is clear but not explicitly routed against alternatives.

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