update_arm_profile_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses a side effect (becomes the selected arm profile), an important idempotency trait (no-op if already selected), and a governance gate (UNIFI_PROTECT_MUTATIONS_ENABLED). It could add more about failure modes, but it gives meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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, starts with the core action, and integrates parameter guidance and behavioral notes in a few lines. No filler or redundant restating of the schema is present.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers parameter semantics, the selection side effect, idempotency, and the mutation gate. The only small gap is that 'Governed by UNIFI_PROTECT_MUTATIONS_ENABLED' is terse and does not state what happens when the flag is disabled, which an agent might need to know.

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 fully compensates. It explains that host accepts a console name, ID, or composite MAC:numericId format, and it tells the agent exactly how to obtain arm_profile_id from list_arm_profiles. This is precisely the kind of semantic detail an agent needs.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Select the active arm profile'. It also provides the exact endpoint, which makes the operation unambiguous. It is clearly distinguished from sibling tools like update_arm_profile, which implies editing profile details rather than setting the active selection.

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 clear context: this changes which profile is the console's selected active arm profile and says it is a no-op if the profile is already selected. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use this instead of X', but the scoping is strong enough to guide correct selection.

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