Commit profile.create (fallback, dev/test only)

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

Annotations already convey readOnly=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: it is a restricted fallback auth path gated by an environment variable and intended only for dev/test, not real accounts. It does not cover side effects in detail, but the annotations plus this context are sufficient.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and scope, the second gives the prerequisite and preferred alternatives. Every word adds value.

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 description covers purpose, usage restrictions, and alternatives, which is strong. However, it lacks any explanation of the required operation and confirmOperationHash fields, and there is no output schema. For a fallback commit tool with nested objects, this leaves a meaningful gap in operational completeness.

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 only 33%: only idempotencyKey has a description. The main description adds no parameter guidance, leaving operation and confirmOperationHash completely unexplained. With low schema coverage and no compensating explanation in the description, the agent lacks clarity on required inputs.

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 tool's action: 'Executes ONLY the profile.create fallback auth path.' It names the exact resource/function and scopes it as a fallback dev/test path, which also distinguishes it from sibling auth tools like fatsecret_start_auth and fatsecret_complete_auth.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (fallback auth path only), the prerequisite environment variable ('Requires FATSECRET_ENABLE_PROFILE_CREATE=true'), and directs users to prefer fatsecret_start_auth/fatsecret_complete_auth for real accounts. This provides clear usage boundaries and named alternatives.

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