add_weigh_in

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write. The description adds no further behavioral context such as duplicate handling, overwrite behavior, or what happens when a day is omitted; it merely restates the logging action.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the simple action being described.

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 tool is simple with three parameters and an output schema, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, the description omits meaningful context about the required weight value, unit selection, and date behavior, leaving some gaps despite the low-complexity nature of the tool.

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 low at 33%, and the description only implies the weight parameter without explaining the day or unit parameters. The schema does describe day as 'YYYY-MM-DD; defaults to today' and unit has an enum, but the description does not compensate for the undocumented weight parameter or clarify unit semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Log a weight measurement.' This is clear and immediately understandable. It does not differentiate itself from sibling tools such as get_body_composition, but the write action is distinct enough for an agent to identify.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The intended usage is implied only by the word 'Log', leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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