create_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does reveal key traits: the new profile is made active and the patch parameter contains intake fields. However, it does not mention permissions, error behavior, or conflict handling (e.g., what happens if the label already exists), which is a notable gap.

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 extremely concise: one sentence with a clear action, a parenthetical side effect, and a succinct explanation of the patch parameter. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 an output schema, so return values are presumably covered and the description need not elaborate. However, it omits semantics for the label parameter and provides no guidance on usage relative to update_profile or set_active_profile. The core creation behavior is described, but important contextual details are missing.

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 description must compensate. It explains `patch` as the intake fields with examples, which is helpful. However, it does not explain the `label` parameter at all, leaving one of two parameters undocumented. The description adds value for patch but not for label.

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 the action: 'Create a new profile' with a specific resource and adds a distinctive side effect 'made active' and 'return it'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_profile and set_active_profile, which are for modification and activation respectively.

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 when to use this tool: to create a new profile and make it active. It does not explicitly provide alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear given the sibling tool names. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, so it falls short of a 5.

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