set_profile_parameter

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

Annotations already declare this is a destructive, non-read-only, idempotent mutation. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: a backup is taken first, unknown keys are refused unless force=true, identity keys are refused, and list-shaped fields remain lists. These details materially improve the agent's ability to invoke it safely.

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 dense and front-loaded: it starts with the core action, then immediately covers backup behavior, value/list handling, typo refusal, and identity-key refusal. Every sentence adds operational value with no filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a 5-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves key parameter semantics undocumented, especially name, profile_type, and value representation.

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 parameter meaning. It explains key behavior, force behavior, and list handling, but it does not clarify the required name parameter, the profile_type enum values, or the expected value string format. The phrase 'Identity keys (name, inherits...)' could also be confused with the required name parameter.

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: 'Set one setting in a user preset.' This clearly distinguishes mutation from read/list siblings, and it points to list_backups/restore_backup for backup-related actions. It does not explicitly contrast with get_profile or audit_profile, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiating.

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 implies when to use it by saying it sets one setting and that backups are taken first, and it gives a concrete force=true path for unknown keys. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus get_profile, audit_profile, or restore_backup beyond the backup reference.

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