WHOOP Onboarding (shared wellness profile)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context: the read-only nature is restated for emphasis, and it explains that the profile is shared across connectors. It also provides the follow-up action (call whoop_profile_update with explicit_user_intent=true), which is useful behavioral guidance. Nothing contradicts 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, and the first two sentences are concise. The third sentence is longer and packs multiple ideas (shared profile, connector alternatives), but remains readable and not bloated. Slight trimming could improve, but overall it is efficient.

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 an output schema, the description adequately describes return content (flow, state, missing fields). It covers the shared profile context, read-only nature, and provides a clear next step. It is complete for a tool with two optional parameters and no output schema.

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?

The schema itself provides descriptive parameter semantics: locale explains defaults and language support, response_format explains default and options. However, the tool description adds no parameter information, and schema description coverage is only 50%, so the description does not contribute additional value 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 clearly states the tool returns the 11-question Delx wellness onboarding flow plus current shared profile state and missing critical fields. This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from siblings like whoop_profile_get and whoop_quickstart.

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 provides explicit workflow guidance ('ask these questions one-by-one, then call whoop_profile_update...') and explicitly discusses alternatives: agents can call equivalent {connector}_onboarding tools or rely on this shared one. This gives clear when-to-use and covers alternatives.

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