Set RIS profile

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

Annotations already flag this as a non-read-only, destructive write to ~/.risbridge-mcp/config.json. The description adds real context beyond that: it validates account ownership and workspace writability, that force skips validation, and that confirm=true is mandatory.

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 tight sentences with the core action and destination front-loaded, followed by the validation and confirmation conditions. No filler; every clause carries information.

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 write target, validation behavior, and the confirm/force gates, which is solid for a mutation tool. It still omits the three non-required parameters and says nothing about the default profile or behavior when a config already exists.

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 carry the load. It explains username, slurmAccount, workspace, force, and confirm, but omits profile, sshAlias, and gpuRequestMode entirely, leaving 3 of 8 parameters undocumented.

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: saves username, Slurm account, and workspace to a named config file. The target path makes the effect concrete, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like ris_show_config or ris_discover_profile.

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 a precondition (confirm=true) and notes force bypasses validation, implying when to use it. However it never states when to prefer this over ris_discover_profile, ris_setup_wizard, or ris_write_ssh_config, leaving alternatives to inference.

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