updateLanProfile

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

DestructiveHint=true covers the mutating nature of the operation, and the description is consistent with that annotation. However, the description adds no behavioural detail beyond 'update' – it does't disclose whether the operation overwrites the entire profile, what impact it has on assigned networks/ports, whether existing settings not supplied are reset, or any permission requirements. With only a single high-level sentence, the description leaves the behavioural burden largely uncovered.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler words, front-loading the action and resource. It is easy to parse and appropriately sized for a routine update operation. It lacks some useful context, but conciseness itself is handled well.

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 destructive update operation with 10 parameters, 9 required, no output schema, and no guidance about effects or return values, the description is too thin. It does not explain what happens on success, whether the update is partial or full replacement, or how it relates to adjacent profile/network operations. The annotation helps but the description alone is not enough to safely and correctly invoke the tool.

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 description's 'network assignments and port settings' maps loosely to nativeNetworkId, tagNetworkIds, and the various port-related booleans, which adds a slight framing beyond the schema. But it does not explain profileId, name, or siteId, and the schema already documents most boolean parameters at 70% coverage. The description adds some relevance but does not significantly compensate for the remaining gaps.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('existing LAN profile') with a stated scope ('including network assignments and port settings'). It clearly distinguishes from createLanProfile, and the 'existing' qualifier separates it from creation. However, it doesn't explicitly name or differentiate against updateLanNetwork, so it stops short of full sibling 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 phrase 'existing LAN profile' implies this tool is for modifying an already-created profile, and nearby siblings include createLanProfile and updateLanNetwork. But there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over those alternatives, no conditions, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is present only by implication.

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