cronometer-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well. It discloses the two-step behavior (read-then-update), clarifies it's a partial update (only provided values change), and implies it's a mutation tool ('Update'). It doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions, but for a tool with no annotations, this is above minimum viable.

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?

Perfectly structured: purpose statement first, behavioral context second, then parameter details. Every sentence earns its place. The Args section is organized but could be slightly more concise; however, the overall description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with critical information.

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?

Given it's a mutation tool with no annotations, 6 parameters, and an output schema exists, the description is mostly complete. It explains the partial update behavior and parameter semantics well. However, it doesn't mention what the tool returns (though output schema covers this) or potential side effects like template creation if 'template_name' doesn't exist.

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 compensate fully. It provides clear semantics for all 6 parameters: units (grams/kcal), format (YYYY-MM-DD), defaults (today, 'Custom Targets'), and meaning ('Net carbs target'). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema with null defaults.

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 specific action ('Update daily macro targets in Cronometer'), identifies the resource ('macro targets'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'get_macro_targets' (read vs write) and 'create_macro_template' (update existing vs create new template). The verb 'update' is precise and differentiates from other mutation tools.

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 clear context about when to use it: 'Reads current targets first, then updates only the provided values. Omitted values remain unchanged.' This explains the partial update behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'create_macro_template' for new templates or 'set_weekly_macro_schedule' for weekly planning.

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