Update a browser profile

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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it's a partial patch ('Only the fields you pass change') and explains how `extra` passes unmodeled fields. Does not contradict annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then patch semantics and `extra` guidance. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy.

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?

With 13 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks prerequisites (e.g., must profile be stopped?), side effects (openWorldHint suggests external effects), return value, and guidance for complex fields like proxy or fingerprint. The patch semantics are helpful but insufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 46%; the description adds general patch semantics and clarifies `extra` as a catch-all. However, it doesn't compensate for undocumented parameters like fingerprint, platformVersion, or statusId. The value added is modest beyond 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 clearly states 'Patch an existing profile' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from create_profile and delete_profiles by indicating this is for updating existing profiles. The partial-update semantics and `extra` field clarify scope.

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 implicitly tells when to use this tool (to modify an existing profile) and when not (creation is for create_profile). It also gives direct guidance on using `extra` for unmodeled fields. No explicit exclusions but sufficient context for correct selection.

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