Update GeoIP Profile

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the mutation is idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of required permissions, partial-update semantics, or whether unmentioned settings are preserved.

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?

It is a single bolded sentence with zero padding, and the purpose label is front-loaded. However, brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness — the sentence earns its place only as a title echo.

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 an open-ended nested 'settings' object (additionalProperties: {}), an agent has no idea which fields are valid or how partial updates behave. With no output schema and no guidance in the description, the definition is too thin 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 description coverage is 100%, with 'key' (Profile mkey) and 'settings' (Fields to update) documented directly in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes no additional meaning about the mkey format or which fields the open-ended settings object accepts.

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 reads 'Update GeoIP Profile', which is a verbatim restatement of the tool name and title. It identifies the verb and resource but adds no scope, distinction from siblings like fortimail.profiles.geoip.create or .get, or detail about what is actually being updated.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. the profile must already exist), and no routing advice relative to the sibling create/get/delete operations. The agent must infer everything 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.