Update Delx Wellness Profile

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

With all annotations false, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is a partial patch operation, requires explicit_user_intent, and rejects secret-like fields at write time. It does not mention idempotency or success/failure responses, but still provides substantial transparency beyond the raw schema.

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?

Three sentences, each adding distinct value: action and file, requirement and constraint, usage examples. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 no output schema and three parameters (one nested), the description covers purpose, usage, and key behaviors. It doesn't mention return format or success/failure handling, which is a minor gap, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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?

The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that the 'patch' parameter is used for recording specific fields (preferred name, goals, etc.) and by stating that secret-like fields are rejected. The 'explicit_user_intent' parameter is reinforced. Schema coverage is 67%, so the description compensates well.

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 uses a specific verb ('persist a partial patch') and resource ('~/.delx-wellness/profile.json'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like apple_health_profile_get. It also lists the kinds of data to record, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states a critical usage condition ('Requires explicit_user_intent=true') and a constraint ('rejects secret-like fields'), and provides examples of when to use it. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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