Quick update profile

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

Annotations are minimal (openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains partial update semantics ('Send only the fields to change') and the special root-folder behavior ('folder_uuid 0 moves the profile out of its folder'). This is helpful and not covered by annotations.

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 two sentences, with the first sentence announcing the purpose and scope, and the second providing a key usage instruction and special value. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with 5 params, a nested proxy object, and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, usage, and a special case. It does not mention what happens after update (e.g., response shape) or explicitly point to update_profile for fingerprint changes, but the 'non-fingerprint' wording implicitly covers that. A short pointer to the full update tool would make it more complete, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 60%, with descriptions for folder_uuid, proxy, and profile_uuid. The description compounds this by clarifying that only fields to be changed need to be sent, and by listing the editable fields. It also reiterates the folder_uuid special value. This adds meaning beyond the schema alone, especially the partial-update semantics.

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 clearly states 'Lightweight partial update of non-fingerprint info: name, note, folder and/or proxy.' It uses a specific verb ('update') with a clear scope (non-fingerprint fields) and lists the fields. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'update_profile' by limiting to non-fingerprint fields.

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 provides clear context: use this for partial updates, sending only the fields to change. It implies 'when not to use' by restricting to non-fingerprint info, but it does not explicitly name the alternative tool (update_profile) or provide explicit exclusions. This is clear context but lacks explicit alternatives.

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