config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose important behavior: passwords are not private and must be written inline, and shell-editing config files is forbidden. It also clarifies the relationship between put_profile and put_secret for SSH keys. However, it does not mention return values, persistence, or side effects of operations like delete_profile.

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 a single dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and follows with a warning, operation list, and examples. Every sentence adds value, though the examples create a run-on feel; a structured layout would improve scannability.

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 tool with 14 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers common operations and gives recipes but leaves several parameters undocumented and omits return/error behavior. The 'op=help for recipes' pointer mitigates this, but the agent is still left guessing about body, content, port, and label.

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. It explains several parameters through examples: name, transport, host, username, auth, ssh, winrm, defaults, caps, and key_path (though key_path is not in the schema). However, parameters like body, content, port, and label remain unexplained, and the phantom key_path adds confusion.

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 'Complete self-config for profiles', immediately identifying the tool's purpose as managing profile configuration. It enumerates a clear list of operations (ops) and gives concrete examples, distinguishing itself from sibling tools like exec or endpoint by focusing on profile setup rather than execution or connection.

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 explicit do-not usage ('Do NOT shell-edit config files') and directs to 'op=help for recipes'. It includes concrete recipes for SSH password, SSH key, and WinRM profiles, making it clear when and how to use the tool.

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