put_profile__id__custom

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens to unspecified parameters (are they preserved or reset?), whether the update is atomic, or what the response contains. For a complex mutation tool with 27 parameters, this minimal description leaves critical behavioral questions unanswered.

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 extremely concise at just 5 words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Update profile') and adds a qualifying detail ('with partial parameters'). There's zero wasted language or redundancy. For a tool with extensive schema documentation, this brevity is appropriate if the description were more informative.

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 complexity (27 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'profile' is in this context (browser profile), what 'partial' updates mean operationally, or what happens upon success/failure. For a mutation tool with such rich parameter structure, the description should provide more context about the update semantics and expected behavior.

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 81%, which is high, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'partial parameters,' suggesting that not all parameters need to be specified. However, it doesn't clarify which parameters are optional versus required beyond the schema's 'id' requirement, nor does it explain the semantics of partial updates (e.g., whether unspecified fields are preserved).

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 'Update profile with partial parameters' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'put_profile__id__custom'. It mentions 'partial parameters' which adds a small nuance about partial updates, but doesn't specify what resource is being updated (browser profiles) or what 'partial' means in practice. Compared to sibling tools like 'patch_profile_name_many' or 'post_profile_custom', it doesn't clearly distinguish its specific purpose.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools for profile operations (patch_profile_*, post_profile_*, get_profile_*), there's no indication whether this is for bulk updates, specific field updates, or when to choose this over other profile modification tools. The agent receives no usage context from the description.

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