select_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, and it excels. It reveals that the underlying HTTP route always returns 200 even on silent failure, explains the internal NoProfileError handling, and specifies that this tool re-fetches the current profile and raises ProfileSelectionFailedError instead of trusting the status. This is far beyond typical transparency.

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 longer than average but every sentence earns its place, given the subtle HTTP 200 failure mode that must be explained. It is front-loaded with a clear purpose and then logically walks through the spec correction, the tool's compensating behavior, the output format, and idempotency. A small amount of redundancy exists around the repeated 200 status, but overall it is well-structured.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It specifies the output shape, the failure exception, idempotency, confirmation behavior, and the underlying route. An agent has everything it needs to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the result.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single required parameter. It references profile_id throughout and clarifies that an unknown profile_id triggers failure detection and a raised exception, implying it must be an existing profile identifier. It could explicitly point to list_profiles for valid IDs, but the semantics are sufficiently clear from context.

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: 'Select a profile as OctoBot's current/active profile.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling profile tools like list_profiles, get_profile, create_profile, update_profile, and delete_profile. Even without reading the schema, an agent knows exactly what operation this tool performs.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to change the active profile. It also states the operation is idempotent and not confirm-gated, which clarifies expected behavior. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the purpose itself makes the primary use case obvious.

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