health_create

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the record-shape constraint (只填該類型內容，不含外層 DataPoint), which is genuinely useful, but it omits behavioral notes on dry_run defaults or idempotency conflict handling that the schema already carries.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the schema-check prerequisite and record-shape note following in a logical order. Zero filler.

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 4-parameter creation tool with a nested free-form record, enum-typed data_type, and existing annotations, the description covers the construction guidance an agent needs. There is no output schema to explain, and remaining gaps (dry_run semantics, idempotency behavior) are already documented in the schema.

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 50%: data_type's enum is self-documenting and dry_run/idempotency_key are described in-schema, while record has no schema description. The description partially compensates by explaining that record should contain only the type's inner content and exclude the outer DataPoint wrapper, but adds nothing for the other parameters.

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 (新增/create) and resource (官方支援寫入的健康資料類型), making the creation intent unambiguous against siblings like health_update and health_delete. It further anchors the workflow by naming health_schema as the prerequisite field-checking tool.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the prerequisite workflow (先用 health_schema 檢查欄位), which tells the agent how to prepare before calling. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use or contrasting with health_update for existing records, so it is clear context without full routing alternatives.

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