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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds value by specifying that the tool handles creation and update, and explicitly references the delete sibling for destructive actions. It also mentions bulk execution. However, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether it replaces or merges data), return values, or authorization requirements, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed beyond what annotations provide.

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 primary purpose and key actions. It is reasonably concise but includes some extraneous details (e.g., listing all actions when the tool is for 'save' only). The structure is logical, with the main purpose first, followed by clarification of the flattened action and bulk support. A slight reduction in redundancy could improve conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, 1 required, no output schema), the description covers the core operation and bulk support but lacks explanations for multiple parameters (`texto`, `titulo`, `account`). It also does not describe return values or post-conditions. While adequate for basic use, gaps in parameter semantics and behavioral details reduce completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the role of `anamnese_id` (empty = new), and bulk support for `patient_ids` and `anamnese_ids`. However, it omits explanations for `texto`, `titulo`, `account`, and `interpretacao` (though `interpretacao` may relate to a sibling tool). This leaves several parameters semantically unclear, limiting the agent's ability to use them correctly.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create / update anamnesis records in WebDiet.' It specifies the action (save, create/update) and the resource (anamnesis records). It distinguishes from the sibling `webdiet_anamnese_delete` for destructive removal, and the mention of 'Flattened action: save' clarifies that this tool focuses on the save operation, differentiating it from other write actions like duplicate and save_interpretation which are separate sibling 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (to create or update anamnesis records) and explicitly directs users to `webdiet_anamnese_delete` for destructive removal. It also notes bulk support via patient_ids and anamnese_ids. However, it does not detail prerequisites (e.g., patient existence) or limitations, nor does it explicitly contrast with sibling write tools beyond the delete hint.

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