update_delayprofile_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as permission requirements, side effects, or whether the update is partial or full. The only addition is the pointer to read the schema for fields, which is more relevant to parameter semantics than behavior.

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 brief and front-loaded with the operation. It includes the HTTP method and a practical hint for the body parameter without unnecessary detail. It is concise but could add more specific guidance without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool has a complex body object and an output schema, but the description relies on the agent to fetch the schema for field expectations, which is a valid approach. It does not explain what a DelayProfile is or mention related operations like reordering. It is minimally complete for an agent willing to follow the schema-read instruction, but not self-contained.

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 explains 'body' is the request payload and advises reading the GET or schema endpoint to see expected fields, which is helpful. However, it does not clarify the meaning of 'id' beyond calling it a path parameter, and provides no specific field details. The pointer partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'Update DelayProfile.' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from create and delete operations by name, and from the sibling update_delayprofile_reorder_by_id by the specific action. An agent can identify its purpose immediately.

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 gives clear context that this is an update operation and instructs to read the GET or /schema endpoint first for the body's expected fields. However, it does not mention when to use this over the reorder variant or any exclusions. The schema-read guidance is useful for body preparation but not for choosing among alternatives.

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