update_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses that the tool accepts any property and emphasizes careful verification of property names, which is helpful. However, it does not explain whether the update is partial or full, what happens on invalid property names, or any side effects or permissions required, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 long but well-structured: a clear opening statement, an IMPORTANT warning, and categorized bullet lists. Every line provides useful, actionable information for a highly flexible tool. The front-loaded purpose and organized examples make it easy to parse despite its length.

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 dynamic nature (no fixed parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides substantial context about property naming, examples, and verification. It is not fully complete as it omits details about return values, error behavior, or whether the update replaces the entire profile, but these are somewhat less critical for a simple update operation.

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 is generic (additionalProperties: true) with limited description, so the tool description adds substantial meaning by listing concrete examples for global, AS2, AS3/AS4, and other protocol settings. It clarifies naming conventions (e.g., 'keypath' vs 'signingcertificate') that are not present in the schema, going well beyond the baseline.

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 tool's function: 'Update Arc application profile configuration settings.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_profile and other update_* tools by specifying the resource (profile) and the action (update). The inclusion of protocol-specific settings further clarifies its scope.

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 explicit usage guidance by warning that property names must exist in the actual profile response and must be lowercase. It also lists many example property categories, giving an agent actionable context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like get_profile for verification, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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