Store your health data by creating or updating a profile with date of birth, sex, and optional details.
Create/update the profile (date_of_birth=YYYY-MM-DD, sex=male/female).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sex | Yes | ||
| height_cm | No | ||
| blood_type | No | ||
| date_of_birth | Yes | ||
| emergency_contact | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the write/upsert safety profile is covered. The description's 'Create/update' reinforces but does not extend that. It never states whether omitted optional fields (height_cm, blood_type, emergency_contact) are left untouched or reset to their defaults, which is the main behavioral gap.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the two most error-prone parameters are annotated inline. The parenthetical is dense but readable.
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?
Safety and idempotency are covered by annotations and an output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Still, for a five-parameter write tool with 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the optional fields and their null/default semantics unexplained.
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 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It usefully supplies the date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and the accepted values for sex (male/female), which the schema itself does not constrain via enum. However, three of five parameters (height_cm, blood_type, emergency_contact) remain entirely undocumented anywhere.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Create/update the profile'. An agent immediately knows this writes the user's health profile. It does not name a related sibling (e.g. get_health_summary) for differentiation, but no sibling performs profile writes, so ambiguity is low.
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 'Create/update' implicitly signals an upsert, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer that this is the sole entry point for profile data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.