profile_add

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 details persistence, connection testing, read-only default, default-profile switching, SSH tunnel auto-open and keep-alive, BatchMode non-interactive requirements, and remote host/port defaults. This is far more transparent than typical tool descriptions, fully informing the agent of side effects and prerequisites.

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 moderately long but information-dense. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then logically progresses to test, write permissions, default switching, and SSH handling. Every sentence adds value, though the SSH paragraph is dense and could be split for readability. No redundant or filler content.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need no description. All critical behavioral aspects—persistence, testing, permissions, default switching, and SSH tunneling—are covered. The description fully equips an agent to call the tool correctly, including the non-obvious SSH default resolution. Nothing essential is missing.

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 is the only source for parameter meaning. It explains test, allow_writes, make_default, ssh_host, ssh_remote_host, and ssh_remote_port, covering 6 of 9 parameters. The required parameters name and dsn are left implied, but their purpose is self-evident from the tool's function. It does not describe the 'description' parameter, but overall it compensates well for the schema gap.

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 begins with a precise action: 'Add or update a named connection profile at runtime and persist it.' This clearly identifies the verb, resource, and scope, distinguishing it from sibling profile tools like profile_remove and profile_test. It goes beyond a mere name repetition to explain the persistence and test behavior, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 implies when to use the tool (adding/updating profiles) and gives specific conditions like 'set test=false to skip' and SSH scenarios, but it never explicitly contrasts with alternatives such as profile_remove or profile_test. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, leaving some inference to the agent.

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