create_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context that annotations cannot carry: the account/auth prerequisite and how to satisfy it, plus the explicit note that start_login does not unlock this tool. It omits failure behavior, but the auth disclosure is real added value.

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 compact sentences: purpose first, then a clearly delineated ACCESS note. Nothing is redundant and the prerequisite is easy to find. Minor room to be tighter, but no waste.

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 10-parameter, all-optional creation tool with a nested theme object and no output schema, the description covers the field space and the auth prerequisite. It leaves out what the created profile returns (id, primary behavior), which would be the only notable gap.

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 100%, including the nested theme object, so the schema fully documents every field. The description only restates the field categories at a high level and adds no syntax, default, or interaction meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct.

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?

Specific verb 'Create' plus resource 'profile', and it enumerates the optional content categories (display name, bio, avatar, business info, email branding, theme settings). This clearly separates it from update_profile and get_profile, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 ACCESS block gives concrete context on when this tool will actually work (a Proof account plus PROOF_API_KEY) and explicitly rules out a tempting alternative path ('start_login does NOT open this tool'). It stops short of telling the agent when to prefer create_profile over update_profile or set_primary_profile, but the preconditions are clear.

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