post_profile_browser_import

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Import profiles' suggests a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about permissions required, whether this creates or overwrites data, what happens on success/failure, rate limits, or side effects. For a tool that likely modifies system state, this is critically inadequate.

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 at just two words, which could be appropriate if it were more informative. However, this brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficient communication. While it's front-loaded (the entire description is the purpose), it lacks the necessary detail to be truly helpful.

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?

Given a 3-parameter tool with no annotations, 33% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'profiles' are in this context, what the import process entails, what happens to existing data, what the tool returns, or how it differs from similar tools. For a mutation tool with significant parameter complexity, this leaves the agent with insufficient information to use it correctly.

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 only 33% (only 'dataProfiles' has a description). The tool description 'Import profiles' adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. It doesn't explain what 'currentWorkspace' or 'folderName' mean, what format 'dataProfiles' expects beyond 'CSV file content', or how parameters interact. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the documentation gap.

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 'Import profiles' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'post_profile_browser_import'. It specifies the verb 'import' and resource 'profiles', but lacks any detail about what 'profiles' are, what format they're in, or what 'browser_import' entails. Compared to sibling tools like 'post_profile_browsers_csv' or 'post_profile_custom', it doesn't distinguish its specific purpose.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools for profile operations (e.g., 'post_profile_browsers_csv', 'post_profile_custom', 'post_profile_quick'), but the description doesn't explain when this specific import tool is appropriate, what prerequisites exist, or when other tools should be used instead.

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