Cycle profile update

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses the rejection of sensitive fields and the requirement for explicit user intent, adding behavioral context beyond basic purpose.

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 concise sentences deliver purpose, constraints, and security policy without unnecessary detail. Well structured.

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 limited parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, usage requirement, and security constraints. Lacks details on return value, but reasonable for an update 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?

Schema coverage is 100%. Description adds value by specifying the rejection policy for sensitive fields, which is not in the schema, enhancing parameter understanding.

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?

Clearly states the tool persists a partial patch to the shared Delx Wellness profile, using specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling cycle_profile_get (read).

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?

Explicitly states requirement for explicit_user_intent and lists rejected fields. Provides clear context for when to use, but does not contrast with siblings beyond implicit distinction.

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