Create a profile

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds real context beyond them: profile isolation ('nothing leaks between them'), the concrete idempotency semantics (same name returns the existing profile), and the cost model. It does not describe what the response body contains, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and scope, then alternatives, then the idempotency and cost caveats; every sentence carries information. Heavy capitalization for emphasis is slightly noisy but does not bloat the text.

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 two-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, isolation, idempotency, cost, and sibling routing. It stops short of saying what the returned profile object looks like or what identifier the agent should reuse, which is the only notable omission.

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 100% and both parameters (name, activate) are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description reinforces the switch semantics ('switch to it') but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Add a NEW profile') and enumerates the domain it covers (brand, client, creator, personal workspace), which lets an agent distinguish it from get_brand, list_brands, use_brand, and update_brand without opening a schema. The parenthetical definition of what a profile is adds precision rather than restating the title.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to the sibling tools that continue the workflow ('Use draft_brand to FILL it and update_brand to edit it') and gives the cost condition that selects between them (free now; ~50-credit cascade only when draft_brand runs). The duplicate-name behavior also tells the agent it is safe to call speculatively.

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