Create fan profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the write-but-non-destructive profile is covered structurally. The description adds real value by mapping each type to its required parameters and flagging the two-step create-then-apply workflow, but says nothing about name-collision behavior, idempotency, or validation failures.

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?

Four compact clauses, one per profile type, then the follow-up action. Zero filler and the core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause.

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 9-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the type-conditional parameter usage and the required next step well. It omits what is returned (a profile id vs name) which matters because apply_profile later needs an identifier, but that is a modest gap given the otherwise thorough coverage.

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 78%, so most parameters are already documented, but the description adds the crucial conditional semantics the schema cannot express: which fields apply per type (Fixed→duty, Graph→curve+one sensor, Mix→members+function, Overlay→offset+one base profile). It leaves the default for function and the exact accepted identifier forms to the 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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Create a fan profile") and then defines all four profile types with their distinguishing semantics. An agent can tell this apart from update_profile/list_profiles immediately, and understands what kind of object is being produced.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to the follow-up tool: "Assign it to a channel afterwards with apply_profile," which clarifies this tool alone does nothing useful. It doesn't state when to prefer create_profile vs update_profile, nor that a target function must already exist, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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