Update Shared Wellness Profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it refuses to write without explicit user intent and rejects secret-like fields (oauth, token, api_key, password, etc.). Those are real operational constraints the annotations don't convey. It stops short of describing auth requirements or return 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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct information (what it does, the intent gate, the field rejection) with the action front-loaded. No filler or repetition.

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 mutation tool with annotations covering the safety profile and a documented patch schema, the remaining gaps are minor. An agent knows what it writes, the precondition, and the disallowed content. The absence of an output schema means no return-value explanation is owed.

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 documents patch and explicit_user_intent. The description reinforces the explicit_user_intent gate and adds the secret-field rejection rule, which meaningfully constrains what the free-form patch object may contain. This goes beyond the schema's property-level documentation, though it doesn't detail patch merge/precedence 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 specific verb and resource: 'Persist a partial patch to the canonical Delx Wellness profile.' The 'partial patch' framing usefully distinguishes it from a full-document write. It does not explicitly name the read counterpart (polar_profile_get), but the name pairing makes the distinction self-evident.

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?

Gives a clear precondition — 'Requires explicit_user_intent=true after the user confirms they want to save' — that tells the agent exactly when a write is permissible. No explicit 'when not to use' against a sibling alternative, but the confirmation gate is strong, actionable context.

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