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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. However, the description says nothing about what record is created or modified, and it is silent on the idempotency_key parameter despite a non-idempotent hint — a notable behavioral gap for a write tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the state values inline; no filler or repetition of the title.

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 small 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and two of three parameters, but the unexplained idempotency_key leaves a real gap an agent would have to guess about.

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 must carry the load. It usefully defines state="asleep"/"awake" (absent from the schema) and clarifies that "at" is ISO and can be omitted for 'now', but idempotency_key is left entirely unexplained.

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 (Log) plus the resource (child sleep/waking) and enumerates the two state values, which the schema itself does not. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like log_feed and log_nappy without inspecting any schema.

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?

There is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives or prerequisites (e.g. needing an existing child profile). The only implicit guidance comes from the state values themselves, which is not the same as routing advice.

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