Log a blood pressure reading in Garmin Connect with validated systolic and diastolic values, optional pulse and notes, and a timestamp.
validates systolic 70-260, diastolic 40-150, pulse (if given) 20-250, all integers; when defaults to new Date()
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| when | No | A moment in time, ISO 8601, e.g. 2026-09-28T07:30:00 (local) or with Z/offset | |
| notes | No | ||
| pulse | No | ||
| systolic | Yes | ||
| diastolic | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add real behavioral information beyond them — accepted value ranges imply out-of-range input is rejected, and `when` defaults to the current time. However, it says nothing about what happens on invalid input, whether a reading at an existing timestamp is overwritten, or any auth requirements.
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?
One tight, semicolon-joined sentence with no filler — every clause carries a constraint or a default. It is front-loaded with the highest-value information, though it front-loads validation rather than purpose.
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?
For a 5-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description omits too much: no purpose statement, no semantics for `notes`, no indication of whether this inserts or upserts, and no description of the response. The validation ranges are valuable but do not make the definition complete.
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 only 20% (just `when`), so the description carries most of the burden and largely does: it gives explicit bounds for systolic, diastolic, and pulse, and supplies the default for `when` that the schema omits. It leaves `notes` entirely undocumented and its 'all integers' claim sits awkwardly against the schema's `number` types, which permit decimals.
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 never states what the tool does — it opens directly with validation ranges. The verb+resource in the name ('set_blood_pressure') lets an agent infer that this records a blood pressure reading, and the sibling set (get_blood_pressure, delete_blood_pressure) reinforces that, but the description itself contributes nothing to purpose.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of how it relates to get_blood_pressure or delete_blood_pressure. The agent gets constraints but no routing context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.