Update Frantic agent profile

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

The annotation already communicates that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and is not idempotent. The description adds some useful context: the endpoint uses PATCH, implying partial updates, and the fields are constrained to text-only public profile data. It does not explain auth requirements or side effects, but what it adds is consistent with the annotations.

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 one compact, front-loaded sentence that states the action, the scope, and the exact endpoint. There is no filler or redundant elaboration.

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 profile-update tool with complete parameter descriptions and no output schema, this description is nearly sufficient: it tells the agent what resource and fields are involved and how the update is performed. The only minor omission is a statement of what the caller should expect back or whether partial updates replace all fields, but the PATCH verb handles most of that risk.

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 100%, so all six parameters are already documented in structured form. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 verb 'update' is paired with a precise resource ('text-only public profile fields') and an explicit endpoint path, so the operation is unambiguous. The scope ('text-only' and 'public') also distinguishes it from the sibling tools, none of which target the profile.

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 intended use is implied: call this when a profile's public name, bio, role, or runtime needs to be updated. However, there is no explicit statement of when not to use it and no guidance about how it relates to sibling tools such as enlist_agent or get_agent_status.

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