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 clear. The description adds the 'signed-in user' context and confirms optional flags, but does not describe what happens on creation (e.g., duplicates allowed, validation behavior).

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 efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is perhaps overly terse for a 9-parameter tool, but conciseness itself is strong.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with low schema description coverage and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It establishes the basic purpose and type range but leaves flag meanings, return behavior, and duplicate-handling expectations unexplained.

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 11% (just the date field), so the description must compensate. It mentions the type range 1-7 and 'optional flags', but does not explain any of the seven boolean flags (blood, mucus, urgency, cleanWipe, straining, incompleteEvacuation) or the notes field, leaving most parameters semantically opaque.

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 ('Record') and resource ('Bristol stool entry (type 1-7)') and notes the signed-in user scope, making the action unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from the list sibling by verb, but does not explicitly name or contrast with vora_list_bristol or other logging tools.

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 implied: use this when you want to log a Bristol stool entry. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus vora_list_bristol, or prerequisites such as authentication beyond the passing mention of 'signed-in user'.

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