add_weigh_in_with_timestamps

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly communicates that this is an additive write operation and specifies timestamp formats and allowed units. However, it does not disclose whether the timestamps are optional, what happens when they are null, whether both must be supplied, or how the system handles conflicts between local and GMT timestamps. These are meaningful gaps for a write tool with no annotation coverage.

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 short, front-loaded with the purpose, and then organized as a clean Args list. Every line adds useful information, and there is no redundant marketing or boilerplate. It is as concise as it can be while covering the essential details.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple four-parameter tool with an output schema, but it leaves the timestamp semantics underspecified: it never states that only weight is required, what the timestamp defaults mean, or whether the caller should supply date_timestamp, gmt_timestamp, or both. It also provides no guidance about the closely related add_weigh_in sibling, which is a notable completeness gap given the large sibling list.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: unit_key is given allowed values ('kg' or 'lb'), and both timestamps get explicit format strings (YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ss) plus local vs. GMT semantics. The main weakness is that 'weight: Weight value' adds little beyond the schema property name, and the optionality of the timestamp parameters is not clarified.

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 opens with a clear verb-resource pair: 'Add a new weight measurement'. The qualifier 'with specific timestamps' distinguishes this from the sibling add_weigh_in, which presumably handles the default-timestamp case. An agent can tell what this tool does and how it differs from the closely related tool.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus add_weigh_in or any other sibling. It does not state conditions, exclusions, or alternatives. The only implied context is 'specific timestamps', but the agent is not told why it would choose this variant over the simpler add_weigh_in.

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