update_languageprofile_by_id

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the HTTP method (PUT) and the instruction to inspect schema first, which gives a hint about request expectations. However, it does not disclose behavior such as partial updates, validation rules, or side effects beyond what annotations imply.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action. The endpoint is given, and each argument is explained in one line. No filler or redundancy, so every sentence contributes value.

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 that the body is an arbitrary object and an output schema exists, the description's advice to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint is appropriate and sufficient to obtain needed field details. The idempotency annotation covers safety expectations. It is complete enough for an agent to proceed, though it relies on external schema endpoints for full parameter context.

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 labeling 'id' as a path parameter and 'body' as a request payload. It also directs the agent to the GET or /schema endpoint for field details, which is necessary given the opaque 'body' object. This adds some meaning beyond the raw schema, though it still leaves the actual body structure 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?

The description states 'Update LanguageProfile.' with the HTTP PUT endpoint, making the verb ('Update') and resource ('LanguageProfile') explicit. While it does not explicitly differentiate from the many other update_* sibling tools, the resource name is specific enough to avoid confusion.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only advises reading the matching GET or /schema endpoint before calling, which is a prerequisite step, not a usage condition. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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