Create or Update CDP Guest Profile

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

Annotations already establish read-write, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds the POST/PUT mechanism boundary and the scope of fields it touches, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not clarify whether PUT is a full replacement or a partial update, but annotations plus the explicit method switch still make behavior reasonably transparent.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the action and condition are front-loaded, and the boundary with the data-extension sibling is stated compactly. Every sentence earns its place.

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 17-parameter, zero-required tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential selection and invocation facts: what kind of fields it accepts, how to choose between create and update, and which sibling to use for custom attributes. It could add whether PUT replaces or merges existing values and what happens on a new guest when fields are omitted, but those are localized gaps rather than missing selection-level context.

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 only 41%, so the description carries part of the load. It groups the fields into base guest object categories (name, contact info, address, etc.), which helps with the many undocumented fields, and it reinforces the guestRef create/update toggle. It does not explain ambiguous fields like 'title' or state update semantics, and the schema still has to do most of the individual field work.

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 (creates/updates), the resource (CDP guest profile), the HTTP methods (POST/PUT), and the triggering condition (guestRef present). It also distinguishes itself from the data-extension sibling, so an agent can tell which tool handles base fields versus custom attributes.

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?

Explicitly says to use this tool for base guest object fields and names the alternative (sitecore_personalize_guest_set_data_extension) for arbitrary custom key/value attributes. It also encodes the create-v-supdate decision rule based on guestRef, which is direct when-to-use guidance.

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