create_profile

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. The description only says 'create a new profile' with no mention of mutation behavior, how data is validated, whether partial data is supported (schema shows all fields optional except name), authentication requirements, or side effects. For a creation tool with 50+ optional fields, this is a significant 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?

The description is a single concise Japanese sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately minimal, though it could add a sentence about usage/context to be more valuable. Not verbose, but perhaps slightly under-specified.

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 complex tool with a deeply nested 'data' object containing 50+ fields, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is too thin for this complexity. It doesn't explain what happens on creation, whether the response returns the created profile, how the large data object is used, or clarify the profile_id scoping behavior. Sibling tools include create_persona (similar concept) with no differentiation between them.

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 50%. The description adds no parameter explanation beyond the schema. The 'data' parameter's structure is well-documented in the schema (all field descriptions present in Japanese). The profile_id parameter has a useful description in the schema about account-scoped vs profile-scoped keys. Since each field has its own description in the schema, the description doesn't need to repeat them, but it also doesn't compensate for the 50% coverage gap on the two top-level parameters.

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 'プロフィールを新規作成' (Create a new profile) clearly states the verb+resource action. It distinguishes from siblings like update_profile, list_profiles, get_profile, and delete_profile which have different verbs. However, it doesn't elaborate on scope or distinguish from create_persona which is a closely related resource.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The schema does note that profile_id is required for account-scoped API keys, but the description itself provides no usage context, no prerequisites, and no exclusions (e.g., vs create_persona).

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