iaas_update_image_profile

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

The replace-all semantics for imageMapping in the specified region is the single most important behavioral trait and the description states it explicitly — information the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false) do not convey. There is mild tension with destructiveHint=false since prior mappings are overwritten, and nothing is said about auth requirements or the response.

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 first line "Update image profile" duplicates the opening of the second sentence and earns nothing. The second sentence is a run-on that buries the critical replacement warning mid-string, though the PATCH path at the end is a useful anchor.

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 mutating, nested-body tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential risk (wholesale mapping replacement). Missing are return behavior, whether the response echoes the new profile, and the fact that the region key lives inside imageMapping rather than as a parameter.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning the schema cannot: the imageMapping object is a full replacement keyed by region, and omitted entries are dropped. That clarifies why the nested structure is required and how the 'region' key in the map should be interpreted.

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 specific verb and resource ("Update image profile"), but the first line is a bare restatement of the tool name. It does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as iaas_create_image_profile, iaas_get_image_profile, or iaas_delete_image_profile, though the name plus verb makes the intent unambiguous.

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?

It implies correct usage through the strong warning that existing mappings are replaced and must be re-sent to be preserved — that is meaningful 'how to use it correctly' guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over iaas_create_image_profile or what preconditions exist (e.g., profile must already exist, permissions), and no alternatives are named.

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