configure_ranges

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the effect on personalized time-in-range calculations and mentions the standard range, but it does not disclose whether the setting persists, whether there is validation (e.g., target_low < target_high), or what happens after the range is set. This is a moderate disclosure but leaves key operational details unstated.

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 two sentences long, with the primary action stated first and supporting context second. There is no fluff or repetition, making it highly concise and front-loaded.

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?

For a simple two-parameter configuration tool, the description provides purpose, context, and the standard range reference. It lacks details about validation or persistence, but given the simplicity and fully-described schema, the information is mostly sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool. A higher score would require more operational detail.

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 100% with detailed descriptions for both target_low and target_high, including common values. The tool description's mention of the standard range (70-180) duplicates what the schema already provides, so it adds no additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Customize your target glucose range for personalized time-in-range calculations.' It uses a specific verb ('customize') and resource ('target glucose range'), and the phrase 'time-in-range calculations' differentiates it from sibling read/connection tools and configure_credentials.

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 implies when to use it: when a healthcare provider recommends different targets than the standard 70-180 mg/dL range. It doesn't explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but there are no direct sibling tools that compete with this configuration action, making the usage context clear enough.

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