bookshelf_update_qualityprofile

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

The description includes 'WRITE: this modifies your Bookshelf instance,' which merely restates the readOnlyHint=false annotation. It adds no new behavioral details such as partial vs full replacement, required permissions, or side effects. With annotations already covering the safety profile, the description contributes minimal value beyond them.

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 very short: two sentences that front-load the purpose and add a warning. It is efficiently minimal, though the second sentence is arguably redundant given the annotations. Still, it's appropriately sized and lacks fluff.

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 tool with a free-form body parameter and no schema description, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what the body should contain, whether the update is partial, or any constraints. Despite the presence of an output schema, the input semantics are insufficiently documented for an agent to use this 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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description provides zero explanation of the 'id' and 'body' parameters. 'Body' is an arbitrary object with additionalProperties true, yet the description doesn't hint at its structure or required fields. The agent is left completely in the dark about what to pass.

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 'Update qualityprofile' which is a specific verb+resource combination, distinguishing it from sibling operations like create, delete, or list. It is concise and unambiguous, though it doesn't elaborate on what 'qualityprofile' entails, which is acceptable for a basic update tool.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of 'use this to modify an existing profile, create for new ones' or any context about prerequisites. The description implies an update action but gives no explicit context for selection.

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