Reimport Samsung Health Export from Watch Folder

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

The description discloses important side effects: it clears the in-memory snapshot cache and incremental cache, and promotes a newer export. This adds behavioral context beyond the annotations (which indicate idempotent and non-destructive). No contradictions with 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 three sentences long, with the key action and purpose in the first sentence. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description covers the tool's core function, side effects, and differentiation from the Android bridge. It lacks mention of prerequisites like having a configured watch folder, but that is a setup concern likely handled by other tools. Given the complexity (3 params, no output schema), it is largely 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?

The description adds value beyond the input schema by explaining the effect of check_only=true ('only report what would happen without promoting') and clarifying that force even re-promotes a matching export. Schema coverage is 67%, and the description compensates for missing details on response_format.

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 're-scan' and clearly identifies the resource 'watch folder for Samsung Health export'. It distinguishes itself from the native Android Health Connect bridge, making it clear this is the cross-platform path.

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 explicitly states that this tool is for cross-platform recurring-refresh, contrasting with the native Android Health Connect bridge. It implies when to use (non-Android) but does not explicitly exclude usage of sibling tools like samsung_health_export_freshness, leaving some ambiguity.

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