profile_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose useful traits: directory permissions, isolation hardening, and sanitized config inheritance. However, it does not state what happens if the profile name already exists, whether the operation is reversible, what permissions or environment are required, or what the response looks like.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core action and two important behavioral details efficiently.

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?

This is a creation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage. The description gives useful high-level behavior but leaves critical call-shaping information such as parameter meanings, failure behavior, and prerequisites unexplained, making it incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 8 parameters, including three enums, so the description must compensate but largely does not. It only indirectly gestures at inherit_config through 'sanitized config inheritance' and says nothing about label, accent, auth_mode, link_policy, default_target, or keep_background_alive. Most parameter meaning is left undocumented.

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 and resource: creating a hardened isolated profile directory. It also adds notable scope details such as 0700/0600 permissions and optional sanitized config inheritance. It does not explicitly distinguish this from profile_clone, which likely also creates something, so it falls 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?

The description explains what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it instead of profile_clone or other profile-related siblings. There is an implied use case of creating a new profile, but no explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria are provided.

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