figure_library_save_style_profile

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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description's job is to add context. It adds durable-persistence semantics ('long-term', not temporary) and a concurrency prerequisite ('read current revision first') that implies optimistic locking via expectedRevision. Minor tension: 'replace' reads as overwrite while destructiveHint=false, but it is not a clear contradiction.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the gating rule, then the prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 mutating tool with a deep nested schema, 0% parameter documentation, and no output schema, the description covers usage gating and the revision prerequisite well but says nothing about what settings may contain or what happens on revision mismatch. Adequate, with a clear gap in the schema-heavy area.

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% across 4 parameters, including a large nested settings object, so the description must carry the burden and largely does not. 'Read current revision first' gives a useful hint about expectedRevision, but name, enabled, and the entire settings tree go unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb pair and resource: 'save or replace the user's long-term style preferences'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like figure_library_get_style_profile and figure_library_reset_style_profile. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('only use when the user asks to remember/change their defaults') and an explicit exclusion ('never persist temporary instructions'), plus a prerequisite ordering ('Read current revision first'). No alternative tool is named for the ephemeral case, so it is strong context without full alternative routing.

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