profile_use

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: this is a stateful action that changes which collection and embedding configuration all subsequent tool calls will use. It does not contradict readOnlyHint=false or destructiveHint=false. It could disclose more about failures (e.g., unknown profile name) or reversibility, but the core behavior is clearly conveyed.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary behavior is front-loaded, and the example follows naturally to clarify intended use.

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 one-parameter, stateful switching tool, this description is complete enough. It explains the effect, the use case, and provides an example; with an output schema present, no return-style documentation is needed.

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. It implies the single `name` parameter is the identifier of a saved profile and provides real examples like 'demo' and 'work'. However, it never explicitly maps `name` to the parameter or states constraints such as whether the profile must pre-exist.

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 and resource: it activates a saved profile and explains the effect is switching the active collection and embedding configuration for subsequent tool calls. It is clearly distinct from listing profiles or creating collections, though it does not explicitly name a sibling it should be distinguished from.

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?

It clearly tells the user when to use it: to switch between separate RAG setups, with a concrete 'demo' to 'work' example. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the intended usage context is unambiguous.

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