create_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it excels: it discloses side effects ('creates new state, never destroys anything or touches credentials/live trading'), non-confirm-gating behavior, error semantics (raises ProfileImportFailedError), and known upstream issues (import_url broken, import_file never returns JSON). This is far more transparency than typical tool descriptions.

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 long but every sentence earns its place given the four-mode complexity. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, structured with bullets for each mode, and includes only high-value caveats such as known spec corrections and upstream breakage. No redundant listing of schema types; all prose adds operational meaning.

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 complex 8-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no per-parameter descriptions, this description is complete. It covers per-mode required arguments, optional arguments, output shape, error behavior, and safety profile. An agent has everything needed to select the correct mode and construct a valid call, including awareness of the broken import_url mode.

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, and it does thoroughly. It maps every parameter to its relevant mode, defines file_base64 as raw bytes base64-encoded, clarifies that description defaults to empty string, and states that irrelevant arguments are ignored. Each of the 8 parameters is effectively explained through the mode-based requirements.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new profile, one of 4 ways, discriminated by mode.' The four modes are enumerated, making the tool's scope unmistakable and distinguishing it from sibling profile tools like update_profile, delete_profile, and list_profiles. The resource is clearly a profile and the action is creation.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use the tool: it creates a new profile and is not confirm-gated, emphasizing it never destroys state or touches credentials/live trading. It also explains that only mode-relevant arguments need to be supplied. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when to choose this over another profile-related tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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