profiles_updateUpdate an agent profile's configuration while ensuring the current config matches expected_current_config_id to prevent conflicting changes.
Update agent profile
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| orgID | Yes | ||
| config | Yes | ||
| projectID | Yes | ||
| agentProfileID | Yes | ||
| expected_current_config_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. However, the description contributes zero behavioral context of its own: it does not mention that this overwrites configuration, what the required expected_current_config_id concurrency token implies, or any permissions needed. No contradiction with annotations, but no added value either.
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?
Brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness. A single restated phrase cannot be considered front-loaded or well-structured when there is no substantive content to structure.
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?
A destructive, non-idempotent mutation with five required parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions needs the description to carry the burden of behavior, preconditions, and parameter meaning. It carries none of it.
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?
Five required parameters at 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. The semantics of config, expected_current_config_id (clearly an optimistic-concurrency token), and the org/project scoping are left entirely undocumented.
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?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to any alternative tool. An agent gets no signal about when profiles_update is preferred over profiles_rename or agents_update.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.