Sanity-check profile physics

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the behavior of fetching live config, overlaying proposed changes, running math, and the significance of the blocked verdict. This is valuable, non-contradictory context beyond the annotation.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a clear action directive. No wasted words.

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 pre-save check tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, key behavior, the critical blocked verdict, and its place in the workflow via the save_preset reference. Complete and actionable.

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 has 0% description coverage for the single parameter `changes`. The description clarifies it as an 'optional proposed changes' object, giving it meaningful semantics. However, it does not detail the expected structure, though the open-object schema makes this less critical.

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 clearly states it is a 'Deterministic pre-save gate' that fetches live config, overlays optional changes, and runs flow/temperature/geometry/cooling math. It distinguishes itself from save_preset by explicitly instructing to run before saving.

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?

Explicitly states 'RUN THIS BEFORE save_preset' and warns 'verdict=blocked means DO NOT SAVE,' providing clear when-to-use guidance and a critical exclusion condition.

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