post_profile_custom

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create profile' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose critical behaviors: whether this is idempotent, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or what the response contains. It mentions 'partial parameters' but doesn't explain defaults or required fields. For a complex creation tool with 26 parameters, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 four words, with zero wasted text. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Create profile') and adds a clarifying constraint ('with partial parameters'). Every word earns its place, making it efficient for an agent to parse, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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 the tool's complexity (26 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'profile' is in this system, the scope of creation, expected outcomes, or error conditions. For a creation tool with many configurable aspects, the description fails to provide enough context for an agent to use it effectively beyond parsing the schema.

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?

The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the input schema. It mentions 'partial parameters', implying that inputs are optional, but the schema already indicates 0 required parameters and 85% description coverage. The description doesn't clarify parameter relationships, dependencies, or provide examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate with additional insights but doesn't detract either.

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 'Create profile with partial parameters' states the action (create) and resource (profile) but is vague about what a 'profile' entails in this context. It mentions 'partial parameters' which hints at optional inputs but doesn't clarify the tool's specific purpose compared to siblings like 'post_profile_quick' or 'post_profile_browser_import'. This is borderline tautological as it mostly restates the name 'post_profile_custom'.

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. With many sibling tools for profile creation and management (e.g., 'post_profile_quick', 'post_profile_browser_import', 'post_profile_clone_multi'), there is no indication of when this custom creation tool is appropriate, what prerequisites exist, or when to choose other methods. This leaves the agent without usage context.

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