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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: severity levels map to concrete outcomes ('mild' note only, 'moderate' suppress progression, 'severe' suppress + safety disclaimer). It also discloses that alias forms like 'shoulder_left' are accepted, which is useful behavioral nuance. No contradiction with 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 trigger, and the longer controlled-vocabulary list is necessary because the schema itself does not provide that information. The structure is efficient and every part earns its place, though the vocabulary list makes it slightly longer than a minimalist description.

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?

The description sufficiently covers the purpose, trigger condition, body_area constraints, and severity behavior, and annotations cover the mutation profile. The lack of guidance on the required 'content' parameter and on idempotency semantics means an agent may still be uncertain about how to fully construct a valid call, especially with 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of parameter documentation. It explains body_area and severity in useful detail, including the controlled vocabulary and severity enum semantics. However, it does not explain the required 'content' parameter, nor the optional 'idempotency_key' and 'affected_exercises', leaving a meaningful gap in agent 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Report a new injury or pain.' It also states exactly when to call the tool ('when the user describes physical discomfort that should affect training'), clearly distinguishing it as the tool for recording new injuries rather than updating memory status or other memory operations.

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 explicitly states the triggering condition for use: when the user describes physical discomfort that should affect training. It does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, but the context is clear enough for a write tool of this kind.

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