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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation with destructive potential. The description adds the authentication prerequisite, which is genuinely useful behavior context. But it does not explain what gets destroyed or made irrecoverable despite the destructiveHint, nor what the response looks like.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by access guidance. The field enumeration is slightly redundant with the schema but not wasteful.

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?

Covers the action and auth prerequisite, and the schema fully documents all 10 optional parameters including nesting. However, for a destructive create with no output schema, the description omits what a created profile returns and what destructive effects the destructiveHint implies, leaving gaps an agent may need.

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 100% with per-property descriptions, enums and patterns, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only groups field names (display name, bio, avatar, business info, email branding, theme) which roughly maps to parameters but adds no format, default, or interaction semantics 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?

States a clear verb (Create) and resource (new profile) and enumerates the configurable fields in one sentence. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like update_profile, update_my_profile, or set_primary_profile, so it stops short of a 5.

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 ACCESS note gives a clear prerequisite and recovery step (authenticate the client, then retry; start_login does not open this tool). However, it never contrasts create_profile with update_profile or set_primary_profile, leaving the choice between them only implied by the verb 'Create'.

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