profile_update

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden for a seven-parameter mutation tool. It hints at filesystem side effects ("reconcile sandbox directories") and a security-relevant change ("auth mode"), but never says whether reconciliation destroys or rewrites data, whether a running sandbox is disrupted, whether keychain credentials are migrated, or whether changes are reversible.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. But the brevity is achieved by omission rather than efficiency, leaving key behavior and parameters unstated.

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 seven parameters, three enums, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin to call safely. The agent lacks permission requirements, effect on existing state, expected outcome, and the meaning of nearly half the parameters.

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%, so all seven parameters are undocumented beyond their types and enum value lists. The description only loosely maps to label/accent ("metadata"), auth_mode, and link_policy, and says nothing about default_target, keep_background_alive, or what the required name identifies — so three parameters have no semantic explanation anywhere.

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 ("Update") and enumerates the resources it touches: profile metadata, auth mode, symlink policy, plus a sandbox directory reconciliation step. That is enough to separate it from profile_create/profile_delete/profile_inspect by name alone, though no sibling is explicitly named.

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 profile_create, profile_clone, or profile_repair, and no statement of prerequisites such as the profile existing or the sandbox being stopped. The agent must infer the usage context entirely.

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