Draft optimized profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clarifies the tool does not write live, requires login conditionally, and returns a payload for dry_run, which is critical behavioral info. It doesn't disclose error handling or what happens when files are missing, but the core non-destructive behavior is well covered.

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 three sentences with zero filler. It front-loads the primary purpose, immediately clarifies non-destructive behavior, and states the conditional login requirement. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with 3 simple parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains the output is an update_payload for dry_run, which is key. Missing are return structure details, but since no output schema exists, that could be a gap; however, the tool's simplicity and clear purpose mitigate this.

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 already covers all parameters at 100% with clear descriptions. The description adds value by hinting at file types (WAAS markdown, resume/bank files) and the semantics of compare_live, which supplements the schema. However, it doesn't detail how include_optional interacts with the payload, but schema covers its meaning.

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 builds a paste-ready update payload from local drafts, a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself by explicitly noting it does not write live and pairs with waas_update_profile for dry_run, differentiating from siblings like waas_preview_profile and waas_update_profile.

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 implies usage for preparing updates without writing, and mentions compare_live requires login. It does not explicitly list when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the clear reference to waas_update_profile dry_run provides context. A slight gap is not stating scenarios where one should use waas_preview_profile or waas_audit_profile instead.

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