agent_profile

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real behavioral content: it mutates device settings, snapshots exact original values before changing them, and restores them including absent keys, tied to the same device. It still leaves out whether elevated privileges/root are required, whether applied changes survive reboot, and what list returns, which matter for an unannotated mutation tool.

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 tight sentences with no filler, front-loading the action set and then the save/restore guarantee. The second sentence is dense but every clause (BEFORE, including absent keys, same device) carries distinct information.

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?

Return values need not be explained because an output schema exists, and the save/restore contract is covered. For a four-parameter, zero-schema-coverage tool with no annotations and many adjacent device-setting siblings, it is only minimally complete: action vocabulary, privilege requirements, and cross-tool selection are all absent.

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 0%, so the description has to compensate, and it partially does by mapping profile_id to restore and connecting stay_awake/zero_animation to the saved values. It never states that apply/list/restore are the legal values of the otherwise un-enumerated action parameter, nor what the booleans do on list or restore.

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 three specific verbs (apply/list/restore) and a concrete resource (Agent speed profile), plus the mechanism (save original animation/stay-awake values, restore by profile_id). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the closely related sibling optimize_device_for_agent, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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 implied rather than stated: the mention of 'restore ... by profile_id on the same device' signals that restore requires a prior apply on that device, and the save-before-change wording implies apply is the entry point. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use, and no guidance on choosing between actions or against optimize_device_for_agent.

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