Tool profile / phased exposure

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

Annotations only declare write/idempotent/non-destructive; the description adds far more that annotations cannot carry — the ~one-turn latency window before a newly exposed tool is callable, that `unknown_tool` on a just-added tool is not a failed edit, that removed tools may linger one turn as stale registrations, and that the switch is journaled but bypasses the write gate and After Effects. Scope blast radius is spelled out per value, including that a session choice wins over the process default.

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?

Sectioned with caps headers and front-loaded with the core switch semantics, which helps scanning. But it is roughly 300 words for a four-param meta tool and carries rhetorical ballast that does not aid invocation ("THAT IS A CONTRACT, NOT A WARNING", "the honest instruction is coarser", the docs pointer for cost numbers), so signal is diluted by emphasis.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description never says what an inspect/`list` call returns or what the profile-change response looks like, and the `list` param is undocumented. Everything an agent needs to safely perform the switch — timing contract, scope, values, gating — is otherwise complete and unusually thorough.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: `profile` values are enumerated with tool counts, `scope` is given default and full semantics, and `request_id` is explained as accepted-but-not-forwarded. The `list` parameter, however, is never mentioned, leaving one of four params with no meaning anywhere.

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?

Opens with a specific verb pair and resource: "Inspect or CHANGE the MCP tool profile (which tools the model is shown)." It goes further and distinguishes itself from the only sibling by explaining the asymmetry ("This is the ONE tool that is visible in EVERY profile") and its role relative to `ae_system_tool_search`.

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?

Explicit about the starting state (`idle`), the exact values to pass (`read` = 33 tools, `authoring` = 83, `full` = 108), and when to reach for the sibling first ("Use `ae_system_tool_search` first if you do not know which profile carries the tool you want"). It also names the condition that selects `scope="process"` versus the default `session`.

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