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

The annotations already mark this as non-readOnly, idempotent, and destructive, so the description adds value beyond them by explaining the partial-update behavior ('alle andere bleibt stehen') and the semantic consequence of 'kontaktierbar' being false. No contradiction with 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 concise, purposeful sentences with no filler. The most important operational rule (only send changed fields) comes first, followed by a field semantic and a user-interaction instruction. Every sentence earns its place.

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 four-optional-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: scope, partial update, a key field's meaning, and the required user confirmation. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to call the tool correctly, though it does not describe error or result handling.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds important semantics not in the schema: the partial-update rule affects all parameters, and the 'kontaktierbar' description clarifies the real-world consequence of false. This is meaningful added guidance.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Aendert das eigene Profil des Nutzers' (changes the user's own profile). It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling 'profil_ansehen' by emphasizing 'eigene' and 'aendern', so an agent can tell edit from view.

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 gives concrete usage guidance: only pass fields that should change, everything else stays untouched, and tell the user what will be changed before doing it. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context makes the edit-vs-view distinction clear.

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