ac_updateProfiles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is restricted to Sellers using Sponsored Products, which is useful context about permissions or eligibility. However, it fails to describe the core behavior: what the tool actually does (e.g., updates profile settings), what the expected outcome is, whether it's idempotent, or any side effects. For a tool with 'update' in its name and no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 concise (two sentences) and avoids unnecessary words. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative—it omits critical details about the tool's purpose and parameters. While structurally simple, it does not effectively communicate essential information.

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?

Given the tool's name suggests an update operation, the lack of annotations, low schema coverage (0%), and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It misses the core purpose, parameter explanations, and behavioral details. The output schema might cover return values, but the description does not bridge the gaps in understanding how to use the tool effectively.

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?

The input schema has 1 parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage in the schema itself. The description does not mention parameters at all, providing no compensation for the lack of schema documentation. It fails to explain what 'body' should contain, its structure, or its purpose. This leaves the parameter entirely undocumented.

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 does not state what the tool does. It only provides a restriction about which account types can use it ('only used for Sellers using Sponsored Products'), but gives no indication of the action (e.g., create, update, delete, list) or the resource being acted upon (profiles). The name 'ac_updateProfiles' suggests an update operation, but this is not confirmed or explained in the description.

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 some guidance on when NOT to use the tool ('not enabled for vendor type accounts'), but offers no positive guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'ac_listProfiles' or 'ac_getProfileById', nor does it explain prerequisites or typical use cases. The guidance is incomplete and lacks context for decision-making.

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