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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false, which the description's 'Save' verb aligns with. The description adds that all numeric values are strings and that calculated fields are computed server-side, giving some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose response behavior, error conditions, or permissions, and the annotations already cover the basic safety profile. 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose and prerequisite. It covers key points without excessive length, but some sentences could be tighter. Overall, it earns its place, with minor verbosity around sections.

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 complexity (55 parameters, no output schema, limited annotations), the description covers usage prerequisites, parameter categories, and formula options. However, it lacks any mention of the return value or response format, which is important for an agent to understand what the tool outputs. Error conditions are also omitted, so completeness is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 55 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides significant added value by grouping parameters into sections (basic, skinfolds, circumferences, bone diameters, bioimpedance), specifying units (mm, cm), and explaining the formula_escolhida and refAntropometria enums. It compensates for the lack of per-parameter descriptions, though many individual parameters are not explained.

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 body measurements for a patient, specifies that webdiet_create_antropometria should be called first to obtain an ID, and distinguishes it from creation tools. The verb 'Save' and resource 'anthropometry' are specific, and the description differentiates from sibling tools like webdiet_create_antropometria.

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 explicitly instructs users to call webdiet_create_antropometria first to get the antropometria_id, providing a clear prerequisite. It also mentions bulk support with patient_ids and antropometria_ids, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives. The guidance is clear but lacks exclusions.

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