update_my_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes a required user confirmation, which is a useful behavioral trait, but omits other important details such as permanence of changes, authentication requirements beyond the implicit user context, rate limits, or what happens if only one field is provided. With no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 a single sentence for the action plus a short pre-condition sentence. It is concise and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. No wasted words.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more behavioral context such as side effects, permissions, or error conditions. It mentions the confirmation requirement but leaves many agent-relevant details unaddressed, making it incomplete for safe invocation.

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 both parameters (character limits, default behavior). The description simply restates the two parameters without adding syntax, format, or edge-case details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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?

States a specific verb (เปลี่ยน = change) and resources (displayName, statusMessage) of one's own LINE account. Distinguishes from sibling get_my_profile (read vs update) and rename_friend (friend vs self). The specific fields make it clear what is updated, though it doesn't explicitly name siblings.

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 explicitly states a pre-condition ('ต้องยืนยันกับผู้ใช้ก่อนเปลี่ยน' = must confirm with user before changing), which is useful usage guidance. However, it doesn't list when to use this tool versus alternatives or any other exclusions; the usage is only implied by the context of a profile update.

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