octobrowser_create_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the creation action. It does not mention side effects, whether creation is reversible, required permissions, any rate limits, or what happens on duplicate titles. The agent gets no behavioral context beyond a generic write operation.

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 a single, concise sentence and is front-loaded with the action. However, it is so brief that it provides minimal information. It earns its place as a clear statement, but the lack of additional structure or context means it is not efficiently informative.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns after creation, how to handle failures, or what constitutes a valid profile. The description alone would not sufficiently guide an agent on the full lifecycle of profile creation, especially when comparing to sibling tools like update_profile or delete_profiles.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with its own descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it does not explain parameter relationships, defaults, or how nested objects like 'fingerprint' or 'proxy' should be structured.

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 action ('Create') and the specific resource ('new OctoBrowser profile'). It unambiguously distinguishes this creation tool from sibling tools that delete, update, or retrieve profiles, and from creation tools for other resources like tags or proxies.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a proxy or tag), what to do before creating a profile, or scenarios where other tools like import_cookies or update_profile would be more appropriate. The only implied usage is the tool's name, which is not sufficient.

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