profile_set_verified

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral burden. It discloses a key dependency (pack_create is blocked while false), but does not explain permissions, idempotency, reversibility, or any side effects beyond that gating behavior.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted wording. The purpose and the critical gating condition are both stated immediately.

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 single-boolean tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and the most important behavioral dependency. It is nearly complete, though a brief note on idempotency or expected response would make it fully self-contained.

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 clarify the single boolean parameter. It implies that true means reviewed and false means unverified/blocking pack_create, which adds meaningful context beyond the schema, but it does not explicitly define the parameter or note that it is a boolean.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: marking the profile as reviewed/verified by the user. It clearly identifies the operation and its relation to pack_create, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling profile_update.

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?

It states a concrete usage condition: pack_create refuses to run while the flag is false, which tells the agent when this tool must be used before pack creation. It lacks explicit when-not guidance or a direct mention of alternative profile tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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