Garmin Profile Update (shared wellness profile)

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

Given annotations are largely false (not readonly, not destructive, not idempotent), the description adds value by clarifying it never stores secrets, lists allowed top-level keys, and mentions validation rejection. It does not, however, describe side effects like file creation or concurrency behavior.

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 description is five sentences long, front-loading the purpose and requirement, then listing fields, constraints, and context. Every sentence adds unique value without redundancy.

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 write tool with nested parameters and no output schema, the description thoroughly covers input constraints and behavior. The only gap is the lack of information about the return value or success/failure indicators.

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 high (67% with descriptions), and the description significantly enriches the patch parameter by enumerating valid top-level keys and subfields of profile. This provides concrete guidance beyond the generic schema definition.

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 explicitly states the tool persists a partial patch to a shared wellness profile, listing top-level fields and distinguishing from sibling tools like garmin_profile_get by highlighting its cross-connector nature and update role.

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 clearly requires explicit_user_intent=true but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies the tool is for writing and others for reading, no direct comparisons or exclusions are provided.

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