save_debug_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose whether this operation requires specific permissions, if it overwrites existing profiles, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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?

Single sentence with zero waste - every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose. Front-loaded with the core action ('Save'), followed by what's being saved and the outcome. No redundant or verbose phrasing.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose well but lacks behavioral context about permissions, side effects, error conditions, or what constitutes 'current' configuration. The 100% schema coverage helps, but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral transparency.

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 schema already documents both parameters ('name' and 'description'). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific context beyond what's in the schema, such as naming constraints or description formatting. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 clearly states the specific action ('Save') and resource ('current debug configuration') with precise scope ('breakpoints, watches, filters') and outcome ('as a named profile'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'load_debug_profile' and 'list_debug_profiles' by focusing on creation rather than retrieval or listing.

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 when needing to persist debug settings, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'export_session' or 'capture_snapshot'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from tool naming alone.

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