profile_apply

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it states what the tool does, it lacks critical behavioral details: whether this requires specific permissions, if the change is reversible, what happens to existing session settings, or potential side effects. The description doesn't mention error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 appropriately sized with clear front-loading of the main purpose followed by parameter details. The two-sentence structure is efficient with zero wasted text. However, the parameter documentation could be integrated more seamlessly rather than as a separate Args section.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values) and only 2 parameters with good description coverage, the description is reasonably complete for basic usage. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context about what 'apply' entails, potential impacts, and error scenarios to be fully complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining both parameters in the Args section. It clarifies that 'name' is the profile name to apply and 'session_id' is optional with default behavior (omit for active session). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format constraints or valid values.

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 action ('apply') and target resource ('an iTerm2 profile to a session'), providing specific verb+resource pairing. It distinguishes from siblings like profile_list and profile_show by focusing on application rather than listing or displaying. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from session-related tools that might also affect sessions.

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 usage context through the parameter documentation (session_id omission for active session), but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No sibling tool comparisons or specific scenarios are mentioned, leaving usage context partially inferred rather than clearly stated.

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