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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important write semantics: explicitly null clears a field while omitted fields are untouched. It also describes the return shape, including changed fields, ui_impact, intake progress, and conditionally computed goal_candidates, which gives the agent substantial behavioral context for a destructive/idempotent mutation.

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 main purpose is front-loaded, and every part of the description relates to correct invocation or interpretation. Some return-value details are dense and arguably unnecessary because an output schema exists, but the wording is generally efficient rather than padded.

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 complexity, nested patch object, annotations, and output schema, the description is complete enough to call it correctly. It covers write semantics, injury handling, return structure, intake state, and goal_candidates behavior without leaving obvious gaps for an agent.

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%, so the schema already documents the patch fields and their allowed values. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining the null-versus-omitted distinction and how add_injuries and resolve_injury_areas are used.

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 states a specific action and scope: persisting user-confirmed coaching profile facts, with examples (goal, experience, schedule, equipment, injuries, preferences), and notes that it works mid-workout. It is clearly distinguishable from session/logging tools, though it does not broadly differentiate itself from siblings such as upsert_goal or log_coach_event.

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?

It gives a clear usage condition — persist facts the user confirmed — and clarifies that one fact or several can be sent per call. It also routes injury creation and closure to the correct fields, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name most alternative siblings for other profile-adjacent tasks.

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