profile_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only restates that the tool updates a profile. It does not mention whether updates are partial or full replacements, whether the profile must be stopped, authentication needs, side effects, or what happens to fields not supplied.

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 clear, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It is concise, though it could have included more useful detail without much extra length.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and moderately complex nested parameters. The one-sentence description is too sparse to fully inform an agent about update semantics, return values, error cases, or operational constraints.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema already documents profile_id, name, remark, user_proxy_config, and fingerprint_config, so the missing explanation is acceptable.

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 action ('Update') and a clear resource ('existing browser profile'). It is unambiguous and reasonably distinguishes from sibling tools like profile_create and profile_delete, though it does not explicitly name any alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus profile_create, profile_delete, or other related profile tools. The word 'existing' weakly implies it is for already-created profiles, but the description provides no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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