tool_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds real context by clarifying that no job or remote file is modified and that 'full' takes effect immediately. This usefully reassures the agent about side-effect scope, though it does not detail what switching profiles costs or affects beyond remote jobs/files.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the action and the parameter domain front-loaded ahead of the behavioral reassurance.

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 one-optional-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the enum values, behavior of 'full', and the non-destructive blast radius. The only minor gap is not clarifying the omitted-parameter (consult) case explicitly.

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 — and it does, defining the single optional parameter's domain ('essential' or 'full') and the effect of 'full'. It does not spell out what 'essential' hides or what a null/omitted value does, but the 'consult or change' framing implies the latter.

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+resource: consult or change the tool profile ('profil d'outils') for this connection, and names the two possible profiles. This is distinguishable from sibling administrivia like profile_report or profile_job, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'consult or change' framing and the enumerated values, and it notes that 'full' immediately redisplays advanced tools. But it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no when-not-to-use or alternative routing.

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