vibeside_create_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 burden, and it falls short. It says nothing about side effects (does creating a profile disturb the active session?), duplicate-name handling, persistence of the vault directory, or whether the operation is reversible. Only the word 'isolated' hints at 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?

A single well-formed sentence with the action front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects thin content rather than disciplined trimming.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. The schema covers inputs well, but the agent gets no sense of the result, error conditions on duplicate names, or interaction with the active-profile state.

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%, with clear docs for name, overwrite, setActive, description, and the defaultCipher enum. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('isolated browser profile directory and configuration'), which inherently distinguishes it from vibeside_delete_profile, vibeside_switch_profile, and vibeside_list_profiles. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the action verb is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., whether the browser must be stopped or a profile can be created while another is active), and no routing to alternatives like switch_profile. The agent must infer usage purely from the verb.

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