update_antivirus_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful behaviors: partial updates ('Only specified fields will be updated') and the return shape. It omits important lifecycle facts for FortiManager, notably that changes likely require commit_adom to take effect, and says nothing about permissions or lock requirements.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation and the partial-update rule in the first two lines, then a compact parameter list with no filler. The Returns block is slightly redundant given an output schema exists, but it is short and does not bloat the definition.

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?

For a 6-parameter mutation with no annotations, the definition covers operation, partial-update semantics, all parameter meanings and allowed values, and the response shape. The main missing piece is the commit/lock workflow context that governs whether the update actually takes effect.

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, and it largely does: each of the six parameters gets a one-line meaning, and crucially the allowed values for feature_set (proxy/flow), scan_mode (default/legacy) and av_virus_log (enable/disable) are stated even though the schema has no enums. The adom/name params get only a bare restatement.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: "Update an existing antivirus profile." The word "existing" implicitly separates it from create_antivirus_profile, but the description never names the sibling tools it must be distinguished from.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'update existing' framing and by 'Only specified fields will be updated,' which signals a partial/patch-style update. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite statements (e.g., profile must exist, ADOM must be locked), and no routing to alternatives like create_antivirus_profile.

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