Record grass touched

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, which is consistent with the description's 'Record' action. The description adds the specific action and trigger examples but no additional behavioral nuances like whether it appends to a log, returns a value, or requires authentication. For a simple tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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: the first states the core action, the second gives usage triggers. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no wasteful content.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and when to use it. It does not explain what happens after recording, but given the simplicity, that is likely unnecessary. The description is largely sufficient.

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 input schema fully describes the 'note' parameter with an example, so the description does not need to compensate. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description adds no extra parameter context.

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 records when the user goes outside, with a specific verb and resource. It gives examples of triggers that help distinguish it from siblings like grass_conditions or where_to_touch_grass, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

It explicitly states when to call the tool: when the user says they went out, took a walk, went to the park, or came back inside. This provides clear invocation context, but it does not mention exclusions or how it compares to sibling tools.

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