manage_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: renaming cascades to app rules and Switch Profile keys that reference the profile, and all operations are staged only. This also implicitly explains why destructiveHint=false is correct despite the delete operation. It stops short of describing permissions, reversibility, or error behavior.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place. The core capability is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the two non-obvious consequences (rename cascade, staging) are packed into the second with no filler.

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 and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description need not explain return values. It covers operations, key side effects, and staging, but a brief pointer to the staging workflow (e.g. that apply_changes/discard_changes finalize or revert) would make it complete for a multi-operation mutation tool.

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 80%, so the schema already documents device, profile, new_name, copy_from, and the operation enum. The description adds little parameter-level detail beyond the rename cascade side effect; per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific resource (a profile) and enumerates the exact operations it performs (create, duplicate, rename, delete, make selected), so the agent immediately knows what kind of tool this is. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the read-only sibling 'show_profile', so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

'Staged only' implies the mutation workflow (changes must later be applied rather than taking effect immediately), which is useful context. However, it never states when to choose this tool over siblings like show_profile, preview_changes, or apply_changes, leaving the usage model implied rather than explicit.

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