WHOOP Profile Update (shared wellness profile)

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds real context beyond them: merge/patch semantics ('partial patch'), the exact storage location, a guarantee that secret-shaped fields are rejected at validation time, and that the state is shared across other Delx Wellness MCPs. It does not say what happens to nested keys omitted from the patch or what the call returns.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and target path before the constraints. The prohibited-secret clause is somewhat parenthetical but earns its place given the shared-file context. No filler sentences.

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 no-output-schema mutation tool with nested objects, the description covers what is written, where, the intent gate, and the secret rejection rule. It leaves the merge behavior for nested/omitted keys and the effect of response_format to inference, which is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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 67%, so the schema already documents the patch and explicit_user_intent params. The description enumerates the allowed top-level patch keys, matching the schema's list without adding format or nesting rules. The response_format enum is left unexplained in both places, so no value is added over structured fields.

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?

States a specific verb ('Persist a partial patch') and a concrete resource (the shared Delx wellness profile at ~/.delx-wellness/profile.json). It is distinguishable from the read-side siblings (whoop_profile_get, whoop_get_profile) by the write verb and by clarifying the target is the local shared wellness profile rather than the WHOOP API profile. It stops short of naming the read sibling it complements.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite gate: 'REQUIRES explicit_user_intent=true' plus guidance to set it only after the user confirms. It also frames itself as cross-connector so the agent knows the write is visible to other MCPs. It never states when NOT to use it (e.g., preferring a read-only path first) or names an alternative tool.

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