WHOOP Profile Update (shared wellness profile)

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

Annotations indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds valuable context beyond these flags: it persists to a specific file path, rejects all secret-shaped fields at validation, and is cross-connector (read by other MCPs). It does not describe return value or error behavior beyond secret rejection, keeping it from a 5.

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 well-structured: purpose first, then the required flag, field list, secret exclusion, and cross-connector context. Each sentence adds distinct value, and it is not overly verbose for the amount of critical information it conveys.

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 the tool has nested objects, 3 parameters, and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral and operational context: what it does, where it writes, required intent, supported fields, and security constraints. The only notable gap is not explaining the response format, but the response_format parameter hints at it.

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 input schema already documents patch's allowed keys and explicit_user_intent's requirement. The description adds meaning by restating the exact top-level field enumeration and emphasizing that partial patches are allowed. It also adds the critical rejection rule for secrets, which is not in 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Persist a partial patch to the shared Delx wellness profile' with the file path. It clearly distinguishes from sibling read tools like whoop_profile_get by emphasizing it writes to a cross-connector profile shared by other MCPs.

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 provides strong usage guidance: it mandates explicit_user_intent=true and instructs when to set it ('AFTER the user has explicitly confirmed'). It also warns against secret-shaped fields. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the write/read distinction from siblings is clear from the resource path and cross-connector note.

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