gsd_set_profile

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only restates the action implied by the tool name. It does not mention side effects, persistence, or scope of the switch (e.g., global vs. project-specific), leaving the agent without critical context.

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?

The description is extremely concise, front-loaded, and free of fluff, but it is under-specified to the point of being terse. It is not a bloated description, but it sacrifices necessary information for brevity, making it merely acceptable.

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?

The tool has one parameter with an enum, no output schema, no annotations, and a short description. The description fails to explain the profile options (e.g., what 'balanced' vs. 'budget' means) or the impact on other tools. Given the mutation-like behavior, more context is needed.

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 input schema fully documents the 'profile' parameter with an enum and a brief description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter values (e.g., what 'inherit' means), but the schema already provides the enumeration.

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 uses a specific verb ('Switch') and resource ('model profile'), clearly indicating the tool's function. It is differentiating from generic config tools, though it doesn't name alternatives. However, it lacks detail on what a 'model profile' is, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool vs. alternatives like gsd_config_set or gsd_settings. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when switching profiles is appropriate. The agent must infer from the schema alone.

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