Reimport Apple Health Export from Watch Folder

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, which the description supports by detailing state changes: 'promoted to the active export, the in-memory snapshot cache and incremental cache are cleared.' It also explains check_only behavior and force parameter effects. No contradictions; the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 paragraph containing all necessary information without excessive verbosity. It could benefit from bullet points or clearer separation of behaviors, but it is efficiently written and front-loaded with the core action.

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 the tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers scanning, promotion, cache clearing, force, check_only, and distinguishes from the native bridge. It also mentions the setup path and required permissions. For its complexity, it is fully complete.

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 67%, and the description adds meaning: for 'force' it explains 're-promote the newest export... even if it already matches the active export (forces a cache refresh)'; for 'check_only' says 'report the watch-folder status without promoting a new export.' The 'response_format' is already described in schema. The description compensates well for the missing schema descriptions.

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 tool's action: 'Re-scan the configured watch folder... for a newer Apple Health export.' It specifies the resource (watch folder) and the verb (re-scan and promote). It distinguishes from siblings by noting it's the 'cross-platform recurring-refresh path' and that the native HealthKit bridge is separate, avoiding confusion.

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 usage context: 'the cross-platform recurring-refresh path — the native HealthKit bridge needs macOS and is separate.' It also indicates when not to use it: 'Requires explicit user intent when promoting a new export (force or non-check_only); check_only is read-only inspection.' It doesn't explicitly enumerate alternatives but gives clear guidance on intent.

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