Autoload: save profile (v1, deprecated)

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

Annotations already communicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds specifics: it overwrites existing settings and creates if none exists, clarifying the upsert behavior. This is beyond what annotations provide.

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: two sentences and a deprecation note. All sentences add value, with the primary action front-loaded. No wasted words.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description does not mention return values or success/error behavior. For a destructive tool with 7 params, this is a gap. The idempotencyKey behavior is in schema but not in description. It's adequate for simple use 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the tool description does not need to add parameter details. The description mentions 'single URL feed' and references upload_url, but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool creates or updates (upsert) a v1 autoload profile with a single URL feed. It distinguishes from the v2 sibling via deprecation notice and recommendation to use v2 for multiple feeds.

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 deprecation note explicitly tells users to prefer autoload_create_or_update_profile_v2 for multiple feeds, implying this tool is for legacy single-feed use. It does not list all alternatives but provides clear guidance on when to use the v2 tool.

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