Update Shared Wellness Profile

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds key behavioral traits: requires explicit user intent, rejects secret fields. This goes beyond annotations, though the description does not detail result behaviors (e.g., success/failure responses).

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, no redundant information. Every sentence adds value: the first describes the action, the second adds constraints.

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, the description covers key behavioral aspects (intent, field rejection) but omits the success/failure response format. For a write tool with clear safety constraints, this is mostly complete but could mention return behavior.

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 67% with three parameters. The description adds meaning by specifying the patch structure (top-level keys) and reinforcing the intent requirement. It compensates for the missing schema description on response_format by not mentioning it, but the context is sufficient.

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 clearly states the tool persists a partial patch to the Delx Wellness profile, with specific verb 'Persist' and resource 'partial patch'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like fitbit_profile_get by indicating it is an update operation.

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 requires explicit_user_intent=true after user confirmation, and mentions rejection of secret-like fields. It provides clear context for when to use, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use.

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