neuron_profile_save

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the persistent target path and a meaningful side effect (recipe variables auto-fill from saved data), which goes beyond a bare 'save' statement. However, it omits whether updates merge with or completely replace the existing profile, and says nothing about return behavior or required permissions.

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 sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the verb+resource in the first sentence. The common-fields list and the recipe auto-fill side effect each earn their place by adding operational 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, where it writes, which fields are expected, and a downstream behavioral consequence. The main gap is merge-vs-overwrite semantics for partial updates, which is a meaningful operational detail for a save/update tool, but the description is otherwise sufficiently 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?

The data parameter is already fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) with a concrete example, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value by enumerating the recognized common fields (name, email, location, timezone, tone, linkedin, github) that the open additionalProperties schema does not constrain or list. This helps an agent choose meaningful keys when constructing the data object.

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 states a specific verb ('Save or update') and a concrete resource ('the user's profile (~/.neuron/profile.yaml)'). The explicit file path anchors the tool's scope and distinguishes it from write-siblings like neuron_session_save and read-siblings like neuron_profile_get. An agent can tell exactly what resource this acts on without inspecting the schema.

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 recipe auto-fill sentence ('Recipe variables with matching keys are auto-filled from this profile') hints at when this tool's output matters, but the description never names the obvious alternative neuron_profile_get or states when not to use this tool. Usage context is implied through the recipe relationship rather than explicitly stated.

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