debug_profile

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing top-level-only merge semantics, whole-block replacement of nested blocks, the concrete hub example of accidental data loss, and that the profile is in-memory only and empty again after a server restart. That last point is critical volatility context the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false) do not convey.

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?

Dense and front-loaded, opening with the resource and actions before explaining merge semantics and the lifetime caveat. The hub example earns its place, though the 'replace is the only way to remove' point is restated, adding mild redundancy.

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 no-output-schema tool it does state the return value ('full resulting profile') and covers the tricky merge/volatility behavior thoroughly. The gaps are the unexplained optional parameters (notably session) against 13 params at 31% coverage, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

With only 31% schema description coverage, the description carries much of the load: it enumerates the set-able fields and richly explains merge and hub. However, several parameters (session, board, notes, server_type/server_args) get no meaning beyond their names, so compensation is partial.

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 the resource (active debug profile) and the two operations (action=get | set) with the set-field list, so an agent knows it reads/writes the session's debug configuration. Sibling differentiation is weak, though: it does not explicitly separate itself from adjacent tools like debug_config, hub, or get_session.

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 clear conditional guidance for the merge flag: enable it to add one nested key without dropping identity, leave it off to replace and thereby remove a stale entry. This is real when-to-use reasoning, though it stays at the parameter level and names no alternative tool for configuration.

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