update_releaseprofile_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 safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by pointing the agent to GET/schema to discover expected fields. It does not clarify whether the PUT performs a full replacement or partial update, which would be valuable for a mutation tool.

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 well structured: a one-line purpose, the HTTP endpoint, and a short Args section. Each sentence earns its place, and the most important usage advice is clearly front-loaded.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover idempotence and destructiveness, the description provides enough context for the core call. The only meaningful gap is the lack of explicit partial-vs-full update semantics, which is especially relevant for a PUT endpoint.

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 parameter names, with schema description coverage at 0%. The description compensates by identifying id as a path parameter and body as the request payload, and it directs the agent to GET/schema for the body's fields. Id semantics are thin, but the body guidance is strong given additionalProperties is true in the schema.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Update ReleaseProfile.' The PUT endpoint reinforces the operation. It is unambiguous against siblings like create_releaseprofile or get_releaseprofile_by_id, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the other update_*_by_id tools.

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 instruction to 'Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first' tells the agent a concrete prerequisite before constructing the body. It gives clear context for using this tool, though it does not spell out exclusions such as 'use create_releaseprofile when the resource does not exist yet.'

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