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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the temporal defaulting behavior, which is genuinely useful, but it does not warn that repeat calls create duplicate intake entries (relevant given idempotentHint=false) or what the tool 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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the temporal nuance immediately after. There is no filler or restated title text.

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 6-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the primary action and the time semantics but leaves several things an agent needs: the meaning of scheduleEntryId, whether logging satisfies a scheduled dose, and duplicate-handling behavior. Adequate but clearly incomplete.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description's only real semantic addition is that takenAt defaults to now and can be backfilled within the same step, which largely restates the schema's own 'default: now' note. The undocumented params ('notes', 'scheduleEntryId') remain unexplained in both places, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Log that the signed-in user took a supplement') and clarifies the actor is the signed-in user, which an agent can distinguish from generic logging siblings like joiva_log_food. It stops short of differentiating itself from the closely related stackwell_update_intake, stackwell_delete_intake, and stackwell_skip_intake, so the sibling boundary is only implied.

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 'Defaults to now; takenAt records a dose taken earlier in the same step' sentence implies the use case of recording a dose at the moment of a multi-step interaction. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer stackwell_update_intake for corrections, stackwell_skip_intake for missed doses, or how to handle a duplicate log.

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