update_center_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a mutating operation but does not disclose potential side effects, reversibility, or authorization requirements. It only hints at the scope (non-member, poster defaults) without behavioral details.

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 a single sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the action and target, and contains no fluff. It gets to the point instantly.

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's complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is notably incomplete. It does not clarify whether updates are partial or full, what the response contains, or any prerequisites, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 only hints at two parameters (VAT and table style) while fully ignoring the other five. No explanation of formats, allowed values, or relationships is given, leaving the agent to guess from parameter names.

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 the verb (update) and the resource (non-member Pilates center profile fields), and specifically mentions poster expression rules like VAT and table style, which are in the posterDefaults object. This differentiates it from siblings like get_center_profile and update_schedule_settings.

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 provides clear context: it is for non-member centers and targets profile fields and poster defaults. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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