update_appprofile_by_id

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

Annotations already convey that this is not read-only, is idempotent, and is not classified as destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: the HTTP method is PUT, the id is a path parameter, and the body fields must be discovered via GET or /schema before calling. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by the HTTP endpoint and argument notes. There is no fluff and every line contributes useful information.

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 tool's simple two-parameter signature, the presence of annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential call pattern well. The instruction to consult GET/schema addresses the open-ended body shape. It could be slightly richer about update behavior, but overall it is sufficiently complete for the agent to invoke correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It identifies id as a path parameter and body as the request payload, and correctly points to the matching GET/schema endpoint for field details. However, it does not describe the actual body semantics or any field-level expectations, leaving much of the meaning to be inferred.

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 tool updates an AppProfile, using a specific verb and resource. It is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other update_*_by_id siblings beyond the resource name.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus creating, deleting, or reading an AppProfile. It does instruct the agent to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint first, which is helpful, but it does not explain when this update is the right choice over alternatives.

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