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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the bulk support detail and the format of texto, but does not disclose whether it creates or updates records, or what happens to existing data. No contradiction 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 concise with two sentences, no redundant information. It front-loads the purpose and efficiently adds the bulk support detail.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers the core functionality and main parameter format. However, it omits the purpose of the 'account' parameter, whether the operation is create or update, and the return value, making it somewhat incomplete.

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?

The description clarifies that 'texto' should be a JSON array of HTML strings per section, adding meaning beyond the schema (which has 0% coverage). It also explains 'patient_ids' for bulk execution. However, 'account' and 'patient_id' remain unexplained, leaving gaps.

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 saves the clinical record for a WebDiet patient, using a specific verb ('Save') and resource ('clinical record'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like webdiet_prontuario (likely read) or other write tools, leaving some ambiguity.

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 mentions bulk support via patient_ids but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., webdiet_anamnese_write_* or webdiet_prontuario). There is no indication of prerequisites or context-specific usage.

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