update_qualityprofile_by_id

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the base behavior is known. The description adds the critical instruction to read the schema before sending the body, which implies the operation expects a schema-conforming payload. It does not contradict annotations and provides a useful behavioral hint (that the body must match the resource schema), though it omits details like whether the operation is a full replace or merge.

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 extremely concise: three lines, front-loaded with the purpose and method, and no filler. Every sentence earns its place, including the imperative to read the schema. It is minimal but information-dense.

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 has no schema descriptions and the body is an open object, the description provides the essential guidance to read the schema first. It does not explain return values, but an output schema exists, so that is covered. For an update operation with idempotency known via annotations, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly, though it could mention the replace semantics.

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?

The schema provides only names and types with zero descriptions (0% coverage). The description labels 'id' as a path parameter and 'body' as a request payload, and crucially advises reading the GET or /schema endpoint to discover the expected fields. This compensates for the schema's lack of detail and gives the agent a concrete method to understand the body structure. It does not list the fields itself but points to authoritative sources, which is practical and valuable.

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 the specific verb 'Update' and the resource 'QualityProfile', and includes the exact HTTP method and path. While the tool name already conveys this, the description reinforces it unambiguously and distinguishes it from other update_* tools by naming the resource explicitly. It is not a tautology because it adds the endpoint details.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to 'Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first', providing clear usage guidance for constructing the body payload. It does not mention when not to use this tool or alternative paths, but for a resource-specific update this is sufficient and context-aware.

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