Cycle profile update

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden. It does disclose behavior: it rejects fields containing secrets (oauth/token/etc.) and requires explicit user intent, and it implies persistence (a write operation). However, it does not specify whether the operation overwrites entire existing data, side effects, or the return format, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded. Every word earns its place, making it an exemplar of conciseness.

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?

Without annotations or an output schema, the description should cover expectations. It includes critical prerequisites and validation, but it lacks details on the return value, error handling, or idempotency. For a mutation tool with nested objects, this is a moderate gap but not severe.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are adequately documented. The description adds a global constraint (secret rejection) which applies to patch, providing some semantic value beyond the schema but not per-parameter detail that isn't already present.

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 ('persist'), a specific resource ('shared Delx Wellness profile'), and the scope ('partial patch'), making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like cycle_profile_get, though the naming implies a write versus read distinction.

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 mandates explicit_user_intent: true and implies it should be used when the user explicitly asks to save/update, but it provides no guidance on when not to use this tool or any alternatives. With many sibling tools, direct usage routing is absent.

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