Make Profile Private

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core effect (profile becomes private/hidden) and the prerequisite (password gate active). However, it does not describe idempotency, side effects, error states, or what happens if the gate is not active. Additional details on return values (output schema exists but not detailed) or authentication needs would improve transparency.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences and an args line. It front-loads the purpose with the condition, then provides the prerequisite. There is no irrelevant information, making it easy for an AI agent to quickly grasp the tool's function.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown), so return values need not be described. However, the description does not mention that the action is reversible via gv_make_public, nor does it specify behavior if the profile is already private. Given the complexity (simple mutation with one parameter), the description is adequate but lacks a nod to related siblings and edge cases.

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%, and the description only adds a brief explanation: 'account_id: The account id to make private.' This is minimal and does not provide format, source, or examples. The description should compensate for the lack of schema description, but it only adds a marginal clarification.

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 tool's purpose: 'Mark a profile as private (hidden when the gate is locked).' It uses a specific verb ('mark') and identifies the resource ('profile'). The explanation of the condition ('when the gate is locked') distinguishes it from sibling tools like gv_make_public, which does the opposite.

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 explicitly provides a prerequisite: 'Requires the password gate to be active (call google_setup_password first).' This tells the agent when to use this tool (after setting up password gate) and implies a sequence. It does not, however, mention exclusions or alternative tools for different scenarios.

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