Profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden, and it says nothing about behavior. The 'switch' action persistently redirects every later tool call and, on shared servers, affects other open chats until restart — none of that is disclosed here (it lives only in the parameter schema). For a tool that mutates global session state, this is a real 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?

A single efficient sentence with no filler and the primary capability front-loaded. It is terse rather than padded, though it is almost too sparse to count as fully structured guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and all three parameters are fully documented in the schema. The only shortfall is that the behavioral caveats about switching are left entirely to the schema rather than the description.

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 the action/make_default descriptions are unusually thorough, including side effects and the 'only if the user asks' constraint. With the schema doing all the work, the description adds no parameter meaning beyond baseline, so 3 is correct.

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 ('List saved Google accounts (profiles)') plus the selectable follow-up action ('choose which one to use'). An agent can tell this is the account/profile management tool. It does not distinguish itself from near-neighbors like refresh_auth or save_auth_tokens, which is why it stops 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?

Usage is only implied: you list profiles to see them and choose one to use. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus e.g. refresh_auth, nor any trigger condition such as authentication failures or multi-account setups. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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