signing_create_profile

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 one useful trait - it writes the profile to standard disk locations - but says nothing about overwrite/conflict behavior, required Apple credentials, or whether it mutates an existing profile.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the 'plus write it to standard locations' clause could be integrated more precisely.

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 tool with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the description omits prerequisites, side-effect details, and any routing relative to its sibling. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the input and behavioral gaps leave the definition under-specified.

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 0% across four parameters (name, cert_id, bundle_id, approval_id), and the description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever. With zero coverage and no compensation in the text, an agent cannot know what cert_id or approval_id expect.

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 (Create) and resource (IOS_APP_STORE provisioning profile), plus the side effect of writing it to standard locations. It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from the related sibling signing_setup_distribution, which likely also deals with provisioning profiles.

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 guidance on when to use this versus signing_setup_distribution, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g. that a certificate and bundle id must already exist). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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