create_quality_profile

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. It states the create action and describes how to construct the input object, but does not disclose consequences like duplicate names, validation behavior, whether defaults are applied, or what the response contains. Adequate for a straightforward create operation, but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler. The core verb and resource are front-loaded, and the workflow instruction earns its place by removing ambiguity about how to populate the nested object.

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 create tool taking a single opaque nested object with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it names the schema tool, the fields to set, and the create action. It could mention that the schema response should be used as a template or that the id should be omitted, but the essential path is covered.

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 100% (the single 'profile' parameter is described as 'Full quality profile object'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value beyond the schema by instructing the agent to obtain the object from get_quality_profile_schema and modify name, cutoff, and allowed items — guidance that makes the opaque nested parameter tractable.

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 'Create a quality profile' — a specific verb and resource that unmistakably conveys the operation. It also names get_quality_profile_schema as the starting point, which helps an agent navigate the create workflow. It doesn't explicitly contrast with update_quality_profile, but the create verb is inherently distinct from the update sibling.

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 gives clear, actionable context: start from get_quality_profile_schema, then set name, cutoff, and allowed items. This tells the agent the prerequisite workflow for this tool. It does not state when not to use it or point to the update alternative, so exclusions are missing, but the context is clear.

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