Update SMTP Auth Profile

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds nothing about what actually happens on an update: no note on which settings fields are mutable, whether omitted fields are reset, or what permissions are needed. For a mutation tool with a free-form nested 'settings' object, this is a complete omission of behavioral context.

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 short, but that brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision. The single label line carries no information an agent could act on.

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 a nested free-form settings object, no output schema, and no annotations explaining mutation semantics, the description leaves everything an agent needs unexplained. Sibling create/get/delete tools exist but are never referenced.

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%, so domain, key and settings are already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description supplies no additional meaning for the especially under-specified 'settings' object (additionalProperties: {}), but it does not degrade what the schema provides.

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 is a verbatim restatement of the tool name and title ('Update SMTP Auth Profile'), adding no scope, resource qualifiers, or differentiation from siblings like fortimail.profiles.imap_auth.update. It is a tautology rather than an explanation.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus fortimail.profiles.smtp_auth.create, .get, .delete, or the imap_auth equivalents. No prerequisites, no mention of required domain/key context beyond what the schema already names.

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