route_create_tuning_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'create or update' but does not explain whether updating overwrites existing profiles, whether it is idempotent, or what side effects occur. This lack of detail is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 action ('Create or update') and specifies the resource. It avoids filler, making it efficient, though it could be expanded with useful detail without becoming overly long.

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?

The tool has 4 required parameters, no parameter descriptions, and no annotations, yet the description offers minimal context. It does not explain what a tuning profile is, the role of this tool in the routing workflow, or what the output contains, despite having an output schema. The description is incomplete for an agent to use it correctly.

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 for the undocumented parameters. It fails to explain what 'layer', 'trace_impedance_ohm', or 'propagation_speed_factor' mean, their units, or how they relate to a time-domain tuning profile. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 phrase ('Create or update') and a clear resource ('KiCad 10-style time-domain tuning profile'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like route_list_tuning_profiles and route_apply_tuning_profile by focusing on creation/update rather than listing or applying.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as route_apply_tuning_profile or route_tune_time_domain. It does not mention when creating vs updating is appropriate, nor any prerequisites or context for using this tool.

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