profile_set_codec

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

Annotations only mark the tool as non-read-only and non-destructive, which provides minimal behavioral info. The description adds meaningful context: it is a partial replacement ('only the payload codec'), it imposes script structure requirements (decodeUplink/encodeDownlink), and using runtime NONE disables the codec. This covers key behavioral traits beyond the annotations.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence packs essential usage details and workflow context into a compact form. Every clause earns its place.

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 is a mutating operation with an output schema (not shown), the description covers the important calling requirements: script necessity and format for JS, how to disable, and a workflow hint. It does not mention error handling or prerequisites like profile existence, but those are less critical and the output schema will clarify return behavior. Overall, it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 must compensate. It does: it explains that script is required for runtime JS and must define specific functions, and it clarifies that runtime NONE turns off the codec. profile_id and CAYENNE_LPP are not elaborated, but their purpose is evident from the enum and name. The description adds substantial parameter meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Replace only the payload codec of a profile.' This clearly distinguishes it from broader profile operations like profile_update, and the qualification 'only' signals its narrow scope. The agent knows exactly what this tool does.

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 gives usage context ('Iterate here while watching uplinks with capture_read') and parameter-level guidance (script requirements for runtime JS, NONE to turn off), but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like profile_update or when not to use it. The guidance is implied, not explicit about tool selection.

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