Replace workspace profiles

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false; the description adds concrete consequence detail beyond them: the list is not merged, absent profiles are dropped, and enabling audit-scitt/1.0 strands earlier entries permanently outside the chain. That names what gets destroyed and the downstream verification impact (chap.audit.verify_chain reporting not_evaluated).

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?

Three sentences, all load-bearing: the operation, the non-merge semantics, the irreversibility consequence, and the safer alternative. Front-loaded with the core behavior and no restatement of the title.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers operation semantics, irreversible consequences, and the preferred alternative path. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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% and the 'profiles' property description already covers the complete-set/replace meaning plus the audit-scitt stranding caveat, so the description is largely reinforcing structured data. Baseline 3 applies; the extra edge-case detail ('starts the chain from that point', verify_chain reports not_evaluated) is useful but duplicative of the schema text.

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 and resource: 'Replace the whole set of profiles enabled on a workspace.' The replace (not merge) semantics are stated up front, which separates it from read/describe siblings and from any additive profile tool. An agent can distinguish it from chap.workspace.create without opening a schema.

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 an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it: 'Prefer setting profiles at chap.workspace.create, where no entries exist yet to strand.' It also implies when not to use it (workspaces that already have audit entries), which is exactly the kind of routing guidance an agent needs.

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