RuntimeCreateProfilerTraceParameters

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it does not say that this is a state-mutating server-side operation, whether the trace configuration persists, whether it must be cleaned up, or what happens if one already exists. With 14 parameters and no annotation coverage, important behavioral context is missing.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean, but for a 14-option scheduling tool it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise; the single sentence cannot cover what an agent needs.

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 mutation-adjacent, 14-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and near-zero schema coverage, the description should at minimum explain the parameter families and the lifecycle of the returned profilerId. It only covers the purpose and return value, leaving the calling details incomplete.

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 7% (only the 'description' field is documented) across 14 parameters. The description mentions no parameter at all, not even the required 'description' or the meaning of the various trace flags (aggregate, sql_trace, amdp_trace, explicit_on_off), so the agent gets no help understanding what any option does.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Schedule ABAP profiler trace parameters') and even names the return value ('profilerId (the request id)'), which sets it apart from read-side siblings like RuntimeGetProfilerTraceData and RuntimeListProfilerTraceFiles. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from RuntimeRunClassWithProfiling, which is presumably the consumer of that id, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisite (e.g. that the returned id is needed by a subsequent profiled execution), and no mention of alternatives or limits such as how many trace configurations may be active. The clause 'for profiled execution' hints at the workflow but leaves the agent to infer it.

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