select_profile

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: out-of-range indices are silently ignored by firmware, the call is rejected while armed, persistence requires a separate save_config, and firmware may auto-change the PID profile on battery connect. These side effects and guards are not derivable from destructiveHint/idempotentHint alone.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and each sentence carries distinct information (index handling, armed guard, persistence, auto-switch). It is dense but not padded; the trailing note is the only slightly tangential element.

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 mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers guards, persistence semantics, and an unexpected side effect, which is close to complete. It could still clarify whether rates/battery selections share the same persistence and auto-switch caveats.

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 100%, so the schema already documents kind (enum) and index. The description adds only that the profile count varies by firmware and the 2026.6+ applicability, which is marginal over 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 specific verb ("Active") and resource ("un profil PID, de rates ou batterie") with the applicable firmware version. An agent can tell it activates one of three profile kinds rather than reading them, though it does not explicitly name which siblings (e.g. get_profiles, set_battery_profile) it supersedes.

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?

Gives real preconditions: refused when the FC is armed, and the selection only survives reboot after save_config, plus a pointer to get_pid_advanced for auto-switching. No explicit "use this instead of X" routing, so it stops short of a 5.

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