Update Profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the partial-update semantics and the fact that it mutates a profile. However, it doesn't disclose whether changes are reversible, whether the active profile is affected immediately, or whether any validation/restart is needed. The partial-update disclosure is valuable but the mutation consequences are under-specified.

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 sentences, both information-dense. The first sentence front-loads the verb, resource, and field scope; the second adds the critical partial-update semantics and a concrete usage example. No wasted words.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete but leaves gaps: it doesn't mention return values, error conditions, or whether the update applies to the active profile. The partial-update semantics and field enumeration are strong, but an agent still lacks information about what happens after the update.

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. It lists the field categories (machine specs, endpoint, pricing, ntfy, inference effort/ceiling, theme, tool grant) which maps to the 12 parameters, and clarifies that 'profile' is the named target. It doesn't explain nested structures like tools.integrations or concurrency_override, but the field list gives an agent a solid map of what can be updated.

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 verb ('partially update'), a clear resource ('named profile'), and enumerates the updatable fields (machine specs, endpoint, pricing, ntfy, inference effort/ceiling, theme, tool grant). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_profile and switch_profile by emphasizing partial update semantics.

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 explicitly states the partial-update behavior ('Omitted fields keep their current values'), which is critical usage guidance. It also names one concrete use case ('Used by /nanites-effort to set the active profile's effort'). However, it doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it or name alternatives like create_profile/switch_profile.

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