update_hydration_entry

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it discloses the 404 error for Iridium app entries, implies it performs a partial update, and notes that the id is required. No contradictions.

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?

Three efficient sentences: action+example, required param, and constraint. No wasted words; front-loaded for quick understanding.

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?

Without an output schema, the description still covers error conditions (404) and valid entry scope. For a simple update tool, this is comprehensive.

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 coverage is 80% (4 of 5 params have descriptions). The description reiterates key points (id required, amount fields are corrected volumes) but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline is 3.

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 verb 'correct' and resource 'hydration entry', and provides a concrete example ('that was a 32 oz bottle, not 16'). It distinguishes itself from log_hydration and get_hydration by specifying it updates existing entries.

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?

Explicitly states the required id from prior log_hydration response, advice to only pass changed fields, and a critical constraint: only works on chat-logged entries, not those from the Iridium app (returns 404). This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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