Commit AI Coach care

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

Annotations already convey that this is a non-read-only, idempotent write (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description adds mild behavioral context by noting the action must be user-confirmed, but it does not disclose the persistence/commit effect, failure modes, or expiry behavior beyond what the schema already says about previewToken. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words and leads with the action verb 'Apply'. It is concise and well structured, though it is slightly too terse to carry much orientation value beyond the high-level purpose.

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 detailed input schema and presence of an output schema cover the mechanical details, and annotations cover safety traits. The description, however, only implies the workflow position (after user confirmation, related to prepare_ai_coach_care) rather than stating it, so the contextual picture is adequate but incomplete.

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 100%, so all five parameters are already fully documented, including the previewToken's origin and 60-second validity. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Apply') and a specific resource ('care action'), and adds a meaningful condition ('that the user confirmed in the dashboard'). It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like prepare_ai_coach_care or set_ai_coach_care_confirmation, so it misses the full 5.

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 phrase 'confirmed in the dashboard' implies that this tool should be used only after the user has confirmed a care action, and the schema's previewToken description references prepare_ai_coach_care. However, the description itself provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternatives.

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