profile_update

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses non-obvious behavior: omitted fields are kept, and map/repeated fields (tags, measurements) replace the entire field rather than merging element-wise. This is valuable because the schema alone gives no such semantic detail; no contradiction with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false.

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 packs the core merge behavior, the exception for map/repeated fields, and the omitted-fields rule into two efficient sentences. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no filler.

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 output schema exists, return values are not the burden here. The description covers the essential merge/replace semantics that an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly on a 2-parameter nested-object call. It falls slightly short of a 5 because it does not mention how unknown or invalid DeviceProfile fields in `changes` are handled.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by defining the `changes` object as a partial update whose omitted fields are preserved and whose map/repeated fields overwrite wholesale. It does not explicitly describe `profile_id`, but the name and required status make its role obvious.

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 opens with 'Merge the given DeviceProfile fields into an existing profile', naming a specific verb (merge), a resource (DeviceProfile fields into an existing profile), and the operation semantics. This clearly distinguishes it from profile_create, profile_delete, and profile_set_codec among the siblings.

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 establishes the use case: apply a partial set of DeviceProfile fields to an existing profile while preserving unspecified fields. It does not explicitly name alternatives or negative conditions, but the merge-vs-replace context makes when to use it clear.

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