Update Delx Wellness Profile

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

Beyond the annotations (all false), the description discloses two critical behaviors: it requires explicit_user_intent=true (otherwise returns USER_ACTION_REQUIRED) and rejects secret-like fields at write time. These safety-relevant details are not present in the annotations and significantly aid correct invocation.

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 three concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and immediately follows with the most important constraint (explicit user intent) and a key safety behavior (secret rejection). Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, behavioral constraints, and typical use cases. It does not explain return values, but there is no output schema and the tool is a write operation, so this is acceptable. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it 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 schema already documents the patch object and explicit_user_intent parameter. The description reinforces the requirement for explicit_user_intent and clarifies that the patch is partial, adding practical meaning to the parameter usage. It does not discuss response_format, but the schema provides an enum and default for that, so the description complements rather than repeats.

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's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Persist a partial patch to ~/.delx-wellness/profile.json.' It also enumerates the types of content to record (preferred name, goals, devices, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling read tools like google_health_get_profile.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('Use to record preferred name, goals, devices...'), but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives. It is clear enough for an agent to recognize this is the update counterpart to read-only profile tools, but lacks direct comparative guidance.

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