update_hub_profile

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

The annotations indicate it is not read-only and not destructive, which aligns with the update verb. The description adds the overwrite behavior, which is a non-obvious side effect not captured in the 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?

The description is concise and well-organized, using a bullet-like list for parameters. No redundant sentences or filler content.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the main update semantics, though it could clarify whether the update is partial or full (it does state full overwrite) and any constraints like allowed values for availability_level beyond 'Public'/'Private'.

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 description explains about half of the parameters (workspace_id, availability_level, primary_url, app_clip_on, widgets, buttons) but leaves core ones like hub_profile_id, name, user_name, sub_name, and description unexplained. The widget and button structures are only vaguely described as 'configuration objects', without defining their 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 'Update an existing hub profile's metadata', specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create, archive, and delete by focusing on update semantics.

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?

It warns that 'All fields are overwritten — provide the full desired state', which is a crucial usage note. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., create for new profiles) or any preconditions like requiring existing profile IDs.

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