Save the role I am looking for

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), it discloses side effects the annotations cannot: a profile is created when none exists, recommendations and title-less searches are subsequently rewritten to that role, and on an account with another role it is a no-op that names the existing role. That no-op-plus-name return detail is exactly the kind of context annotations omit.

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?

It is front-loaded with the action and scope, and most sentences carry distinct information. A few clauses are slightly redundant — 'a role the user names in the chat is saved the same way' partially restates the 'only a role the user chose' rule — but nothing is wasted enough to obscure the call.

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 single-parameter write tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers preconditions, side effects, idempotent behavior, return semantics, and the sibling alternative. There is no remaining ambiguity an agent would need to resolve before invoking it.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented as careerProfileId from roles_lookup or a search question. The description still adds real meaning by constraining the value to a user-selected role rather than an inferred one, which is a semantic rule the schema does not encode.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Saves the one role the user said they are looking for') and immediately scopes it to accounts with no role yet. It distinguishes itself from the sibling profile_role_replace by name, so an agent can separate the two without reading schemas.

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 names both invocation contexts (the FoundRole search panel and a role named in chat), the precondition (account has no role yet), the explicit exclusion ('saves only a role the user chose, not a guess'), and the fallback behavior plus the alternative tool (profile_role_replace). This is close to a complete decision rule.

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