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

Annotations indicate it is not read-only, not destructive, and not idempotent, which aligns with a create operation. The description adds behavioral context: it returns a record ID and supports bulk execution. No contradictions with 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 two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's action, output, type options, and bulk support. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description should explain the meaning of all parameters. It only addresses tipo and patient_ids, leaving 'data' and 'account' unexplained, which is a significant gap for correct usage.

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 0%. The description explains 'tipo' (enumerated types) and mentions 'patient_ids' for bulk execution, but fails to describe the 'data' parameter (a string) and 'account' parameter. 'data' is especially critical as it likely contains the measurement values.

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 'Create a new body measurement record for a patient', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like webdiet_antropometria_get (get) and webdiet_save_antropometria (save), as it creates and returns an ID needed for saving.

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 a workflow: create then save with the returned ID. It mentions bulk support via patient_ids. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for updating existing measurements), nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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