Update Shared Wellness Profile

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

It discloses important behavioral traits beyond annotations: requires explicit user intent, rejects secret-like fields, and notes GPS-redaction default is unaffected. These are safety-relevant details that the annotations (all false) do not convey. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose, intent requirement, and key constraints. It is front-loaded with the action verb and avoids 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 operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, when to use (user confirmation), and key constraints. It does not describe the return format, but that is not critical for a patch tool given the schema details.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds valuable meaning by clarifying that 'patch' is partial (not full replacement) and by listing prohibited field categories, which enriches understanding of the patch parameter 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Persist a partial patch to the canonical Delx Wellness profile.' This clearly states the tool's action and target, distinguishing it from the read-only sibling strava_profile_get.

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 usage context by stating explicit_user_intent=true is required after user confirmation. It implies this tool is for write operations, contrasting with read siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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