Create a profile status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which covers the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context by noting the optional immediate assignment to a profile, which is a side effect beyond simple creation. It does not disclose permissions, reversibility, or return format, but the annotations reduce the burden.

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 sentence of 18 words, with the verb and resource placed upfront. Every word contributes to clarifying the tool's purpose and optional behavior, making it highly concise and 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, annotations present), the description provides the core purpose and the optional assignment behavior, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it. The schema fills in the remaining parameter details, so the combination is complete enough. It lacks explicit failure scenarios but that is not critical for basic usage.

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 50% (profile and password have descriptions). The description compensates for the un-described name and color parameters via the phrase 'coloured status label', which implies text and color choices. It also maps the 'optionally applying it to a profile' phrase to the profile parameter, offering meaningful conceptual coverage of all four parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and identifies the resource ('coloured status label') with a clear purpose ('for grouping and filtering profiles'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_statuses, update_status, assign_status, and delete_statuses by focusing on creation with optional immediate assignment.

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 conveys when to use the tool: when a new status label is needed for grouping/filtering. It suggests an alternative path by saying 'optionally applying it to a profile straight away', implying that if the status already exists one might use assign_status. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it is clear but not fully explicit.

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