update_arm_profile

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the read-before/no-op/read-after pattern, explicitly states that no write is sent when all settings already match, and reveals that the write is governed by UNIFI_PROTECT_MUTATIONS_ENABLED. It stops short of describing auth requirements, side effects, or reversibility, but the core behavioral traits are well covered.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core action and endpoint in the first sentence followed by a clean parameter break-down. Minor redundancy exists: `read-before/no-op/read-after` is restated in the `settings` line, and `REQUIRED` repeats the schema's required list, but the overall structure is easy to scan.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not needed. The description covers the essential behavioral and parameter context well. However, given the sibling `update_arm_profile_settings` and the lack of any differentiation, an agent could pick the wrong tool. It also omits any mention of authentication or permission requirements for this mutation.

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 fully compensate, and it does. Each of the three parameters gets meaningful guidance: `host` format, `arm_profile_id` provenance, and `settings` semantics including the no-op behavior. This adds substantial value beyond the bare JSON 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 the verb ('Update'), the resource ('an arm profile'), and the HTTP method (PATCH). It adds the specific endpoint path, so an agent knows exactly what operation is performed. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling `update_arm_profile_settings`, which appears to overlap in purpose.

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 gives useful prerequisites, such as how to obtain `arm_profile_id` from `list_arm_profiles` and the host formats accepted. It also implies usage through the parameter guidance and notes the no-op condition. But it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus the similar-sounding `update_arm_profile_settings`, and no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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