config_profiles_update

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

Annotations only declare it is a non-read, non-destructive write. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the config is replaced in full (not merged) and 'Nodes that use the profile restart xray to apply it,' a meaningful side effect. It still omits permission requirements and whether partial config edits are possible.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the action and its scope front-loaded before the side-effect note.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with a nested object, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers purpose, replacement semantics, and the node-restart consequence. It is nearly sufficient, missing only per-parameter detail (especially the required uuid) and any permission caveats.

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%, so the description carries the burden. It clarifies that the 'config' argument is the 'full' xray config (replacement semantics), which adds value beyond the bare object schema, but leaves the required 'uuid' and the 'name' constraints entirely to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update a config profile') and enumerates the mutable fields (name and/or the full xray config), which implicitly distinguishes it from tag-oriented siblings like config_profiles_set_tags. It does not explicitly name any sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies when it applies (changing a profile's name or config) but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternative routing, e.g. pointing tag changes to config_profiles_set_tags. Usage is left to inference.

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