preview_business_profile_updatePreview exact changes to capabilities and target markets before applying them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| patch | Yes | ||
| reason | No | ||
| expected_revision | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says 'preview ... before applying them,' implying no state modification, yet the annotations set readOnlyHint to false, suggesting the tool may modify state. This directly contradicts the description's implied read-only behavior. No other behavioral details are provided, so this is a critical 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, direct sentence that is easy to parse and front-loads the core purpose. While it is concise, it sacrifices necessary detail, but from a structural perspective it is appropriately sized for a simple statement.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (nested patch object, multiple optional fields, no output schema), the description is far too minimal. It provides no information about return values, expected_revision semantics, or how the preview is presented. The lack of output schema and low parameter coverage make this incomplete for an agent to use effectively.
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 parameters, but it only mentions 'capabilities and target markets' without mapping to specific fields. The patch object has many properties, but none are described, and expected_revision and reason are entirely undocumented. This is insufficient for a complex nested parameter structure.
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 clearly states the tool previews changes to capabilities and target markets before applying them, distinguishing it from the sibling tool apply_business_profile_update. The verb 'preview' and resource 'business-profile update' are specific and actionable.
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 'before applying them' explicitly situates this tool in a workflow, implying it should be used to inspect changes prior to application. It does not explicitly name the alternative, but the context makes the usage clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clear boundaries (e.g., get_award vs search_awards, get_business_profile vs get_vendor). Some overlap exists in pairs like find_recompetes/find_recompetes_for_business and search_opportunities/search_opportunities_for_business, though the latter are differentiated by profile context.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_, search_, update_, watch_, save_, etc.) with no stylistic deviations. Naming is highly predictable across the entire set.
At 39 tools, the surface is excessively large. While the domain is broad, many tools could be combined or parameterized (e.g., get_business_awards and get_vendor_awards, multiple search variants). This creates overhead for agents and dilutes focus.
The tool set covers the core lifecycle: opportunity/award searching and retrieval, business profile updates, saved searches, watches, exclusions, and reference data. Minor gaps such as award amendments or more granular exclusion handling exist, but the surface is fundamentally complete.