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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description explains that this is a PATCH partial update, that profile fields use YCBM's own names, and that the path id is never sent in the body. These details clarify mutation scope and prevent common API usage mistakes.

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?

Four short sentences each carry essential information: mutation, endpoint, field semantics, and body/path separation. There is no redundancy or filler, and important details are front-loaded.

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 description covers the operation type, API contract, parameter roles, and field naming convention. With full schema coverage and the destructiveHint annotation, nothing essential for calling the tool is missing, though return/error behavior is not described.

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%, but the description adds value by explaining that 'fields' is a passthrough with YCBM's own field names, giving an example '{ title, subdomain, ... }', and emphasizing that profileId is path-only. This goes beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'updates a profile's (booking page) configuration' and labels it 'MUTATES'. The verb and resource are explicit, and the tool name plus sibling set make it clearly distinct from get_profile and list_profiles.

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 clear context: this is the mutation counterpart to profile reads, using PATCH with partial update semantics. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving the agent to infer from the verb and sibling names.

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