add_weigh_in_with_timestamps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects. It only states 'Add' without disclosing whether this creates a new record, updates an existing one, requires authentication, returns the created entity, or has any other implications. The behavior is implicitly a creation, but no explicit transparency about side effects is provided.

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 concise and straightforward, with a clear structure: a one-line summary followed by parameter listings. However, it is minimal to the point of being terse, lacking any additional explanatory content. It is not verbose, but it does not fully exploit the space to add value.

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 fails to provide broader context. It does not explain what 'specific timestamps' refers to, how they differ from the default behavior, whether both timestamps are required, or what the output of the operation will be. No output schema is described. Given the presence of a similar sibling tool, the lack of differentiation or additional context makes this incomplete for an unfamiliar user.

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 parameter descriptions are purely redundant: 'Weight value', 'Unit of weight', 'Local timestamp', 'GMT timestamp'. They add no meaning beyond the parameter names themselves. The schema already provides names and types, and the description fails to clarify units, formats, constraints, or relationships between parameters. Schema coverage is 0% and the description compensates nothing.

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 operation: 'Add a new weight measurement with specific timestamps'. It specifies the verb (add), the resource (weight measurement), and the distinguishing feature (timestamps). This distinguishes it from the sibling 'add_weigh_in' which presumably lacks timestamp support.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the alternative 'add_weigh_in'. The description does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or conditions that would make this tool preferable. The usage context is entirely absent.

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