Air profile update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the action is a 'partial patch' (selective update), that explicit user intent is mandatory, and that it rejects secrets. This goes beyond a simple 'update' and gives valuable constraint context without contradiction.

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 two sentences with zero fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by the required intent and a critical limitation. Every sentence contributes to correct usage without 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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the necessary call conditions: a patch, explicit intent, and secret rejection. It does not describe the return value, but that is not critical for mutation. The missing side effect (shared profile impact) is a minor gap, making it a strong but not perfect definition.

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 100%: both parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds some context (e.g., that the patch is partial and the profile is for non-secret wellness context) but largely reiterates schema info. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema already documents the parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Persist a partial patch to the shared Delx Wellness profile.' This clearly indicates an update operation on a specific profile, which is distinct from read tools like air_profile_get. The name 'air_profile_update' is supported by the action and resource.

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?

It explicitly requires 'explicit_user_intent: true', providing a clear precondition. It also warns against including secret-bearing fields, which is an important exclusion. While it does not explicitly name alternative tools, the mutation vs read nature is implicit from the name and the sibling list, so the guidance is adequate.

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