Update Delx Wellness Profile

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the write target, the explicit_user_intent gating with USER_ACTION_REQUIRED behavior, and write-time rejection of secret-like fields. This gives the agent the safety-relevant side effects it needs.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then behavioral constraints and use cases. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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 an open, nested patch tool with no output schema, the description plus schema covers what to write, where it is persisted, the mandatory intent flag, and the fields that are rejected. response_format is self-explanatory from its enum and default, so no further return-value detail is needed.

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%, so the schema handles patch and explicit_user_intent. The description adds meaning by enumerating the intended top-level patch keys (profile, goals, devices, training, nutrition, preferences, safety, notes) and recordable domain content, though it does not detail response_format semantics.

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 precise action ('Persist a partial patch') and a concrete resource ('~/.delx-wellness/profile.json'), with domain fields to write. The update action is clearly distinct from the many get/list/auth sibling tools.

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 phrase 'Use to record preferred name, goals, devices, training context...' gives clear when-to-use context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, though secrecy rejection and explicit-intent requirement delimit misuse.

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