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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write, and the description adds that it defaults to now and that `takenAt` backdates the record. However, it says nothing about duplicate handling (relevant since idempotentHint=false), whether an existing logged dose is overwritten, or required permissions.

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 tight sentences with zero waste; the core action is front-loaded and the default/backdating behavior follows immediately. Nothing is padded or repeated from structured fields.

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 and near-zero schema documentation, the description should explain key parameters, duplicate/failure behavior, and what is returned. It covers only the default timestamp, leaving an agent unable to call it confidently with `scheduleEntryId` or to predict the result.

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 only 17% – only `takenAt` is documented – and the description explains just that one parameter plus a parenthetical nod to `reason`. The meanings of `supplementId`, `dosage`, `dosageUnit`, and especially `scheduleEntryId` (presumably linking to a plan schedule entry) are left entirely unexplained, 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 gives a specific verb ('Record') and a precise resource ('skipped planned supplement intake'), plus the optional reason. It is clear what the tool does, though it never names the sibling it is distinct from (stackwell_log_intake for actual doses, stackwell_update_intake for edits).

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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'skipped' – the agent must infer that actual consumption goes to stackwell_log_intake and corrections to stackwell_update_intake. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or mention of a sibling alternative.

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