octobrowser_update_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the obvious mutation action. It does not disclose whether the update is a partial merge or full replacement, how conflicts or invalid UUIDs are handled, or what the return value looks like.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is easily scannable and appropriately sized for the simple operation it describes.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too minimal to be contextually complete. It provides no information about error scenarios, partial vs. complete updates, effect on existing data, or how this tool relates operationally to sibling profile tools.

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?

Both parameters are already well-described in the schema (uuid as 'Profile UUID' and profileData as 'Profile data to update'), so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies because schema coverage is 100%.

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 clearly states the action ('update') and resource ('an existing OctoBrowser profile'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, delete, and get profiles. It is a specific verb+resource statement.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any prerequisites (e.g., profile must exist) or contextual conditions mentioned. The word 'existing' implies the profile should already exist, but this is not explicit and no alternative tools are referenced.

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