create_character_profile

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation and destructive potential. The description adds non-obvious context by explaining that Raven only stores reference asset IDs and provider-training payloads locally, and that no actual identity training occurs in this step. It does not detail overwrite behavior for existing profiles, but the destructive hint covers that signal.

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 sentences with the core action front-loaded and the key scope boundary clearly stated in the second sentence. No wasted words or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 description, combined with 100% schema coverage and annotations, gives an agent enough to understand the tool's purpose, side effects, and limitations. The only notable gap is the lack of any statement about what the call returns, such as the created profile ID, but the optional stable id parameter partially mitigates that.

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%, so parameters are already well documented. The description adds slight context by connecting reference_asset_ids and provider-training payloads, but it does not materially expand on the schema's per-field descriptions. 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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a local character/identity reference profile for consistent image or video generation.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_brand_profile and create_taste_profile, and clarifies it is creating a local reference profile rather than a trained identity.

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 makes the main use case clear: create a local profile for consistent image or video generation. It also explicitly excludes the major confusion point: 'actual identity training happens only through a configured provider runner.' It does not name sibling tools, but the boundary is clearly drawn.

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