Oura Profile Update (shared wellness profile)

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

The description discloses writing to a specific file, the requirement for explicit user intent, and the rejection of secret-shaped fields. It adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations, which already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive.

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 concise: two sentences plus a bullet list of fields. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains 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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 params, nested objects) and no output schema, the description covers what it stores and rejects. It could mention typical return values, but it's fairly complete for a mutation tool.

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 adds meaning by explaining the patch parameter is partial and listing allowed keys, and clarifying the explicit_user_intent parameter must be true after user confirmation. With 67% schema coverage, this adds value beyond the schema.

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 a shared wellness profile file, listing the specific top-level fields it can store. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like oura_profile_get by focusing on updates.

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, indicating when to use the tool. However, it does not directly contrast with alternatives (e.g., oura_profile_get) or specify when not to use it.

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