Create a tool access profile entry

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds minimal behavioral context: it's a POST operation and requires 'board' authorization. It does not disclose side effects, such as whether duplicate entries are allowed, whether entries can be overwritten, or what happens if validation fails. Given the annotations cover the safety profile, the description provides marginal added value.

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 very short, but it is structured with a clear purpose line followed by a reference line. However, given the complexity of the tool (multiple parameters, nested objects), it is under-specified. A concise but more informative description would be better.

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?

With zero parameter documentation in both schema and description, the tool is incomplete for effective use. The description does not explain return values even though an output schema exists. It leaves the agent to infer input semantics from the API path and parameter types alone, which is insufficient for reliable 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning no parameter descriptions exist. The tool description itself adds no information about parameters. The schema include complex nested fields like 'body' with selectors, effects, and conditions, but the agent is left without any guidance on how to construct the request body. This is a critical gap that severely hinders correct usage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create a tool access profile entry'. This is a specific verb+resource pair. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools that also operate on tool profiles, such as pc_patch_tool_profile_entries_by_entry_id or pc_post_tool_profiles_by_profile_id_duplicate.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing profile), or when to use other operations like patching or deleting entries. The only contextual hint is the HTTP method and authorization class, which is insufficient.

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