update_quality_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses a key risk: because the whole object must be sent back, sending an incomplete object could overwrite existing settings. The phrase 'send the whole object back' is a meaningful behavioral warning beyond the simple 'update' verb. It does not discuss permissions, return values, or error conditions, but the core mutation and data-integrity behavior is conveyed.

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 no wasted words. The purpose is stated first, followed immediately by the critical usage detail about fetching and sending the whole object. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter update tool with a well-documented schema, this description is nearly complete: it identifies the resource, the required workflow, and the whole-object requirement. The only notable omission is what the API returns after the update, and there is no output schema to compensate for that. Overall, an agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 already provides 100% coverage, describing both `id` and `profile` as a full quality profile object including id. The description adds workflow context but no additional parameter-level semantics about format, defaults, or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the strong schema coverage.

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 the operation: update a quality profile, with a specific verb and resource. The read-modify-write workflow ('Fetch it with get_quality_profile, change what you need and send the whole object back') adds meaningful specificity and hints that this is a full-object update. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like create_quality_profile or delete_quality_profile, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 gives clear context and a concrete procedure: fetch the existing profile first, modify the desired parts, and send the complete object back. This effectively communicates the need for a full replacement rather than a partial patch, which is important usage guidance. It does not enumerate alternatives or state exclusions, so it does not reach a 5.

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