config_add_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that a profile is added, but does not mention whether duplicate names are allowed, credentials are validated, the profile becomes active, or any side effects on the current environment. Security-sensitive fields like clientSecret and refreshToken are not flagged.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It contains no filler words, and every word contributes to the core meaning.

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?

Given 9 parameters (7 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain the concept of a 'profile' or 'environment', what happens after adding, or how to verify the result. Agents are left without critical context for correct invocation and follow-up.

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?

Input schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain how the parameters relate to each other or any defaults, but the schema already handles field-level semantics.

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 'Add' and identifies the resource 'profile' within the 'current environment', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like config_update_profile, config_remove_profile, and config_switch_profile. There is no ambiguity about the action performed.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as config_update_profile or config_switch_profile. It lacks prerequisites, exclusions, or post-conditions, so an agent receives no decision support for selecting this tool over siblings.

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