add_treatment

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states that the tool creates a treatment entry and that the created entry is returned for confirmation, which is the core behavioral contract. It does not go into error cases or side effects, but the main write behavior and response behavior are transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded: core action first, then requirement, then return behavior. The phrase 'etc.' is slightly vague but does not derail clarity. The sentence order makes it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given that the schema fully documents all parameters and the description covers action, prerequisite, and return value, the tool is reasonably complete for an agent to invoke correctly. Minor gaps are the lack of guidance on when to use add_note versus add_treatment and no explicit mention of validation failures, but these are not blocking.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters already have descriptive meaning in the schema. The description lists some example entry types that map to eventType, but it adds little parameter-level information beyond what the schema already says, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Add a treatment entry to Nightscout') and enumerates the kinds of entries it supports, from insulin bolus to site change. It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the nearby sibling add_note, which appears to overlap with the 'note' entry type.

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 a clear operational prerequisite: NIGHTSCOUT_READONLY must be false. This tells an agent when the tool is permitted to be used. However, it does not mention alternatives or explicitly describe when not to use this tool, such as preferring add_note for simple notes.

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