ads_client_profile_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one meaningful trait — no message is sent as a side effect — but for a 12-parameter mutation it omits whether omitted/null fields clear or preserve existing values, permission or auth requirements, reversibility, and behavior when profile_id is unknown.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler, and the core operation is front-loaded ahead of the side-effect disclaimer. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves little room for the scoping detail a 12-parameter mutation needs.

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?

Against a mutation tool with 12 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent still lacks the patch semantics, validation constraints and error behavior needed to call this safely.

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% across 12 parameters, so the description must compensate and mostly does not. It names roughly four of them (context, consent_status, next_action_at, contact account) but is silent on profile_id, source, status, metadata, username, display_name, last_contact_at, and dialogue_summary, and gives no guidance on the anyOf/null semantics that dominate this 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 states a specific verb and resource ("Update one local client profile") and enumerates the main updatable facets — context, consent status, next action, contact account — which map onto real schema properties. The closing sentence carves it out from the sibling messaging tools (ads_client_profile_message_add, ads_client_profile_batch_send), though it does not explicitly distinguish it from ads_client_profile_create or ads_client_profile_get.

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?

One explicit negative condition is given ("does not send a message"), which usefully routes messaging intent to the sibling send tools. Beyond that, usage is only implied: nothing says whether the profile must already exist, when to prefer create over update, or how partial updates are intended to behave.

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