iva_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only adds a security exclusion for password/recovery actions and the API version; it does not disclose that actions like delete_call_forwarding mutate state, require confirmation, or may be irreversible. This is a significant gap for a tool with destructive actions.

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 front-loaded with a compact capability summary and closes with a useful security note. It is short, scannable, and every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's scope.

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 tool with 8 parameters and 13 actions, the schema carries rich detail including per-action usage hints and natural-language examples. The description provides the umbrella scope and the security boundary. The main gap is the absence of return-value info, but that is partially mitigated by the intuitive nature of the get/update operations.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The top-level description adds no parameter-level detail beyond naming the capability areas, while the schema already provides detailed action descriptions, enum values, types, and parameter purposes.

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 clearly identifies the tool as IVA user profile management and enumerates its domains: profile get/update, call forwarding, disk utilization, notifications, and subscriptions. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like iva_user_session or iva_documents, though it relies on the broad noun 'management' rather than a single precise verb+resource statement.

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?

The description implies usage for profile-related tasks and lists the covered areas, which gives an agent a basis for tool selection. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling tools, nor does it provide exclusion guidance beyond the password/recovery security note.

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