skylight_update_profile

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

The annotations already establish that this is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds little beyond 'update': it does not explain what happens to existing values, whether partial updates are allowed, or whether any side effects occur. It is consistent with the annotations, so there is no contradiction, but it provides minimal behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core action and relevant fields clearly, though it could have used the available space to add frameId context without becoming bloated.

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 mutation tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is underspecified. It lacks guidance on frameId, optionality, how the update interacts with existing profile values, and how this differs from adjacent frame-related tools. An agent may be able to guess the intent, but the definition is not complete enough for reliable correct invocation.

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 names name and birthday, which adds some meaning, but it omits frameId entirely. Since schema description coverage is only 33% and frameId has no schema description, an agent is left to guess that frameId identifies the target frame. The description does not compensate for the low 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 states a clear verb and resource ('Update the frame profile') and names the main fields (name, birthday). However, it does not distinguish this tool from closely related siblings like skylight_update_frame or skylight_rename_frame, so the agent may be unsure which one to pick.

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 exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites or the intended scenario. Sibling tools like skylight_update_frame and skylight_rename_frame exist, but the description gives no basis for choosing between them.

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