radar_set_stack_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it omits the most consequential behaviors: whether the call replaces the existing profile wholesale or merges, whether all three arrays are mandatory (they are, per schema), and whether an empty array is a valid way to clear a list. The 'max 30 items' limits are a useful disclosure, but persistence and auth semantics are absent.

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?

A single front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact Args block, with no redundant restatement of the schema types. Every line adds either intent or an example the schema lacks.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the parameters are well covered. However, for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, the description leaves open how the profile is stored and applied by the other radar_* tools, which is the key thing an agent needs to predict the effect of setting a profile.

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 compensate, and it largely does: each of the three required arrays gets a purpose statement, a per-item cap of 30, and concrete example values that convey the expected granularity (single tokens like 'python', 'eval'). It stops short of specifying item format constraints or duplicate handling.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Update user developer profile and architectural focus,' and the Args block names the three facets being set (keywords, preferred_tools, banned_patterns). It is clearly distinct from siblings like radar_check_updates or radar_record_feedback, though it never explicitly says so.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the sibling radar tools, no prerequisite or timing information, and no statement about whether the profile must be set before other radar operations. The only implicit signal is the word 'Update,' which implies a pre-existing profile but does not say when an agent should establish one.

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