Eight Sleep profile update

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

The description adds useful behavioral details beyond the annotations: it persists to a specific file, applies a partial patch, requires explicit user intent, and actively rejects credential-shaped data. This is consistent with annotations like idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false.

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 tight sentences front-load the action and target, then add the key safety constraints. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant wording.

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 nested-patch tool without an output schema, the description covers the target file, patch semantics, explicit-intent gating, and credential rejection. A minor gap is the absence of any mention of return values or error behavior, but response_format and idempotency are covered by the schema and annotations.

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 enriches the patch parameter by explaining it is a partial patch persisted to a specific profile path and that credential-like input is rejected. The schema already documents the allowed top-level keys and explicit_user_intent semantics. response_format gets no additional description, but schema coverage is decent and the key parameter is well explained.

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') and names the exact resource with its file path (~/.delx-wellness/profile.json), clarifying it is a partial patch to the wellness profile. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that read data or control device settings like eight_sleep_set_temperature.

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 clearly states a prerequisite: explicit_user_intent must be true, which tells the agent when calling is appropriate. It also states an exclusion: fields with credential-like keys or values are rejected. It does not name alternative sibling tools for specific device updates, but the gating condition provides solid usage guidance.

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