Update specific sections of the client profile, such as name, email, professional summary, background, or goals overview, to keep the advisory context current.
Update specific sections of the client profile.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Updated name | |
| No | Updated email | ||
| summary | No | Updated professional summary | |
| background | No | Updated background narrative | |
| goals_overview | No | Updated goals overview |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this updates specific sections, but it does not explain partial-update behavior, whether unspecified fields remain unchanged, whether an existing profile is required, or any side effects. This is minimal behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is concise and to the point, though the brevity sacrifices some useful detail.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and five optional parameters, the description is too thin. It does not state that at least one field should presumably be provided, how the target client is identified, or what happens when only some fields are supplied, leaving important invocation details ambiguous.
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 100%, with every parameter already documented ('Updated name', 'Updated email', etc.). The description adds only the framing of 'sections' but no extra meaning about how the parameters behave, which is adequate given the schema.
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 has a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('the client profile'), and states that it modifies specific sections rather than the whole profile. This distinguishes it as a mutation tool from read/ingest siblings like atlas_get_profile and atlas_ingest_resume, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as atlas_onboard_client or atlas_update_goal. It only implies use by the word 'Update'; no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection cues are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.