credential_profile_save

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

The description adds critical behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explicitly states that secret material is rejected and never persisted, and clarifies that GitHub profiles reuse Git Credential Manager. This is valuable disclosure for a tool that could be mistaken for a secret-storage mechanism.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds necessary detail about SSH vs GitHub behavior and secret rejection. Every word earns its place.

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 13-parameter tool, the description plus a rich schema (77% parameter coverage) provides a solid understanding. It covers the fundamental distinction from secret-saving tools and outlines profile behavior, though it doesn't detail update semantics or every optional parameter. Still, it is complete enough for safe use.

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?

The schema covers 77% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining the overall storage model (SSH stores host/user/key-verification/agent-or-key path; GitHub uses Git Credential Manager), which helps disambiguate the purpose of related parameters like privateKeyPath and credentialSource.

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?

The description states a specific action ('Create or update') and a specific resource ('passwordless credential reference profile'). It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like ssh_password_save and github_token_save by emphasizing it stores only references, not actual secrets.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool by explaining what SSH profiles and GitHub profiles do, and explicitly states that passwords, passphrases, private-key contents, and tokens are rejected. It does not name alternative tools explicitly, but the exclusion of secrets is a strong usage guideline.

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