edit_user_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 explaining behavior. It only states that fields are edited, but does not disclose update semantics (partial vs. full overwrite), required authentication, validation behavior, reversibility, or response format.

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 concise sentence and is front-loaded with the action. However, it is overly terse for a five-parameter mutation tool, providing no structural breakdown or field-level guidance.

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?

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and zero parameter documentation, yet the description only covers purpose and scope. An agent cannot confidently call this tool correctly without additional information about parameter semantics, update behavior, and response expectations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the five parameters. It names none of them and only refers generically to 'fields,' leaving the meaning of 'profile,' 'homePage,' 'username,' and others entirely unspecified.

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 uses a specific verb (Edit) and identifies the resource (the authenticated user's public profile fields), making the tool's core purpose clear. It is distinguishable from the sibling get_user_profile as an update operation, though the word 'supported' is somewhat vague.

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 phrase 'authenticated user's' implies this is for modifying one's own profile, providing some usage context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with get_user_profile or mention when not to use it, leaving the decision to inference.

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