GİB Profil Bilgilerini Güncelle

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

The description discloses the important behavioral trait of reading existing data before writing, which is beyond the basic update action. However, with no annotations provided, it carries full burden for behavioral context. It does not mention authentication requirements, potential side effects (e.g., overwriting other fields not specified), or success/failure indicators.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences without fluff. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second adds crucial behavioral context. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's single parameter and lack of annotations and output schema, the description adequately covers the core behavior. However, it omits details such as success/failure responses, error conditions, and whether the update is atomic or partial. These gaps make it merely adequate.

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 coverage is 100% because the description lists all valid keys for the 'fields' parameter. The description repeats the schema information without adding new meaning beyond that the given fields will be overwritten. With coverage fully handled by schema, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('günceller' - updates) and the resource ('kullanıcı profil bilgilerini' - user profile information). It also explains the read-modify-write process, distinguishing it from the read-only sibling 'gib_get_user_data' and other tools that perform different operations.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (to update user profile information). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Since there is no other profile update tool among siblings, the exclusion is implied, but no formal guidelines are given.

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