Update an existing agent profile by changing specified fields; omitted fields remain unchanged. Use to revise role, model, prompt, tags, or limits without replacing the full profile.
Update fields on an existing profile; omitted fields remain unchanged.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| role | No | ||
| tags | No | ||
| model | No | ||
| temperature | No | ||
| system_prompt | No | ||
| max_output_tokens | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key non-obvious trait: omitted fields remain unchanged (partial update, not replace). It still omits whether changes are reversible, what auth is needed, and whether the required "name" is an identifier that renames the agent or just a lookup key.
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?
A single tight sentence with the action first and the partial-update constraint second; every clause earns its place and there is no filler.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a 7-parameter, zero-coverage mutation tool with no annotations the description is too thin. Parameter intent and the semantics of the required "name" field are missing.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and it largely does not. It says nothing about role, tags, model, temperature, system_prompt, or max_output_tokens, nor does it clarify why "name" is required while everything else is optional.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Update fields on an existing") and describes the mutation style, so the agent can distinguish it from create_agent. However, it calls the resource a "profile" while the tool name and siblings use "agent", and it never names an alternative tool, so the sibling distinction is only inferable.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus create_agent or list_agents, and no prerequisites (e.g., the agent must already exist, permissions required) are stated. The partial-update behavior implies an edit path but the description leaves all routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.