patch_w_company_custom_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 does disclose the essential trait — this is a mutating write operation (PATCH) on the custom profile — and hints that headers may carry required credentials ('any required request headers'). It does not describe side effects, whether the update is partial or full replacement, auth specifics, or rate limits. Minimal but non-misleading disclosure.

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?

Three sentences with zero filler. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the two following sentences efficiently map parameters to HTTP concepts (path, query, headers, body). Every sentence earns its place and contributes information needed to construct the call.

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?

With no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description explains the request envelope well but leaves payload contents undefined — an agent still cannot know which custom-profile fields the body should contain or which route ID is required. The output schema exists, so return shape is covered, but input-level completeness for a four-parameter mutation tool is only partially met.

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% and all four parameters are generic containers ({} with additionalProperties), so the schema contributes no meaning. The description compensates by assigning each container a role: route IDs → path_params, filters and pagination → query, required request headers → headers, request payload → body. This is genuine semantic value added beyond the schema, though it stops short of enumerating actual body fields or filter names.

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 and resource ('Update custom profile') and anchors it with the HTTP method and endpoint (PATCH /w/company/custom_profile). Among the sibling tools this is clearly the update variant of the custom_profile CRUD family (get_r_company_custom_profile, post_w_company_custom_profile, delete_d_company_custom_profile_id), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives, which keeps it one step below the strongest definitions.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Update custom profile' tells the agent this tool is for modifying an existing profile, which distinguishes it from the read/create/delete siblings. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., the profile must exist or be fetched first), and no named alternatives or exclusions.

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