health_update

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true). The description adds useful constraints not in the structured data, namely that anonymous diet records cannot be updated and that 'record' must contain complete type content. It omits the most important behavioral trait, the dry_run preview-vs-write default, though that is covered by the schema.

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?

Three short sentences, action front-loaded, zero filler. Slightly dense phrasing but no wasted content.

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 mutation tool with a nested 'record' object, four required params, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the key eligibility constraint and record requirement. It still leaves data_type semantics and the dry_run write/preview distinction (the highest-stakes behavior) unaddressed in prose.

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 only 40% (dry_run and idempotency_key documented), so the description must compensate. It clarifies 'name' as a full resource name and 'record' as complete type content, adding real value, but leaves 'data_type' completely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 clear verb (更新/update) and a mechanism (依完整資源名稱/by full resource name), so the agent knows it is an update operation. However, the resource '可更新資料點' (updatable data points) is generic and does not distinguish which entity is being updated relative to siblings like health_create, health_delete, or health_log_meal.

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?

It gives one explicit exclusion ('匿名飲食不可更新'/anonymous diet cannot be updated), which is genuine when-not guidance. But it names no alternatives and does not explain when to prefer this over health_create or health_write_status, leaving most usage inference to the agent.

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