whoop_sync

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful behavior: incremental-by-default semantics and that per-collection counts and errors are returned. It omits whether the Postgres write is an upsert or destructive, how long a full backfill takes, and rate-limit behavior against the WHOOP API. Auth prerequisites are arguably covered by the sibling whoop_connect/whoop_auth_url tools, which softens the gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and destination, then the mode behavior and return shape. Every clause carries information; nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the default mode, the override, and the return shape. It would be complete except for the mutation semantics of the Postgres write and any execution-time expectations.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining what 'incremental' actually means ('last days days plus anything since the last sync') and that full=true backfills the entire account history. That interaction between the two parameters is not derivable from the schema alone.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with a destination: 'Pull data from the WHOOP API into Postgres'. This contrasts implicitly with the query-shaped siblings (whoop_recovery, whoop_sleep, whoop_cycles), which presumably read stored data, but the description never explicitly draws that line.

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 clear mode-selection guidance (incremental by default, full=true to backfill), which is genuinely useful. However, it offers no guidance on when to call sync versus the sibling tools (whoop_status, whoop_overview), nor any prerequisite such as needing an authenticated connection first.

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