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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, consistent with create/update. The description adds behavioral context: actions, bulk support, and details on formula/factor selection, enhancing transparency beyond annotations.

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 well-structured: starts with purpose and actions, then lists supported formulas and factors, and ends with bulk support. It is informative without being overly verbose, though it could tighten some repetitive lists.

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 lack of output schema and 12 parameters, the description covers core behavior and bulk features but omits parameter-level details and return values. It is sufficient for basic usage but not fully comprehensive.

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 coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining formula, activity factor, and injury factor values. However, it does not explain other parameters like mlg, nome, peso, altura, leaving some ambiguity. Adequate but incomplete.

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 energy expenditure calculations in WebDiet.' It specifies actions (create, save) and lists supported formulas and factors, making its function unambiguous and distinct from siblings like write_create.

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 implies usage based on actions: create for new, save for existing. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling write_create tool, but the action differentiation is clear enough for an AI agent to infer when to use this combined tool.

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