config_profile_update_config_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies mutation via PATCH but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, partial-merge vs replace semantics of a PATCH, or how the nested config object is treated. The only behavioral hint (preview-without-confirm) lives in the schema's confirm field, not the description, so structured data is doing all the work here.

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?

Short, but two of the three lines are low-value metadata: a raw REST path ("PATCH /api/config-profiles") and "Tags: Config Profiles Controller". The one useful sentence is buried in the middle rather than 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, a nested body object, and only 50% parameter coverage, the description is far too thin. It omits the required uuid, the meaning of the nested config payload, and any notion of return or failure behavior.

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 50%, with the confirm parameter fully documented in the schema and the body (name, uuid, config) left undocumented. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema — it does not clarify what goes in "config" or how it merges, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

"Update Core Config in specific config profile" gives a recognizable verb (update) and resource (config profile), so the general purpose is inferable. However, "Core Config" is undefined jargon, and the description does nothing to distinguish this from siblings like config_profile_set_tags, config_profile_reorder_config_profiles, or subscription_page_config_update_config.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., a valid existing profile uuid), and no mention of what happens on success. An agent must guess from the name alone.

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