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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it is a full PUT-style replacement of mutable fields, not a partial patch, which is important for an agent to know. It stops short of clarifying what happens to omitted optional fields.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the PUT analogy that clarifies replacement semantics. Little waste, though the second sentence partially restates the first.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile and there is no output schema to explain, but the PUT semantics leave a real ambiguity: with externalId and metadata optional, it is unclear whether omission clears them. For a mutation tool with low schema coverage, this gap matters for correct 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 coverage is only 25% (only profileId is documented). The description names the three mutable fields (name, externalId, metadata) and frames them as replaced values, which maps them to the parameters, but it adds no format, null-handling, or metadata-shape detail to compensate for the undocumented params.

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 (Replace) and the exact resource fields affected (name, externalId, metadata), making it easy to distinguish from create_profile or list_profiles. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the update/replace verb is self-distinguishing.

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 implies usage by explaining the PUT-style replacement semantics, but it never states when to use this versus create_profile or how it relates to list_profiles. Usage is inferable (updating an existing profile) rather than explicit.

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