measurements_create_bmi

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosurecars. 'Record a BMI measurement' signals a write operation but does not explain side effects, whether duplicates are allowed, required permissions, or what happens if the child does not exist. It adds no behavioral information beyond what the tool name already implies.

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 sentence with no filler or redundant content, and the core action is front-loaded. It is economically written, though it could have added a short clause about intended use without becoming excessive.

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?

Because the output schema exists and all parameters are described, the schema covers return values and parameter semantics, reducing the description's burden. The description is sufficient to identify the action but lacks usage context and safety disclosure, making it minimally viable with clear gaps.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3 even though the description itself mentions no parameter details. The schema already explains the date format, required fields, optional notes, and how to obtain the child_id, so the description need not repeat this.

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 uses a specific verb ('Record') and a resource ('BMI measurement'), making it clear this is a create operation for BMI data. It differentiates from other measurement types by naming BMI, but the distinction from operations like measurements_update_bmi is left to the tool name rather than the description.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus measurements_update_bmi or measurements_list_bmi. It also lacks any prerequisites or context about whether this should be used for new measurements only; the child_id schema hint ("Use list_children to get IDs") is the only related guidance, but it does not address the tool-choice question.

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