Log water

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only (consistent with logging) and not destructive. The description adds the explicit_user_intent guard as behavioral context, but lacks details on side effects, idempotency, or output behavior.

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 concise at two sentences and front-loaded with the primary action. It could be slightly more efficient by combining the two sentences, but it is well-structured.

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 simple write tool, the description covers the core action and intent requirement. However, it lacks explanation of optional parameters (timestamp, date, notes) and does not mention the return value, leaving some gaps in completeness given the lack of output schema.

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 33% (only amount_ml and explicit_user_intent have descriptions). The description repeats the explicit_user_intent guidance but adds no new meaning for undocumented parameters like timestamp, date, notes, or 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 clearly states the tool logs water in milliliters and emphasizes the requirement of explicit user intent. The verb 'log' and resource 'water' are specific, and the condition distinguishes it from related tools like nourish_delete_water or nourish_log_intake.

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 a clear condition for use ('after explicit user intent') but does not mention when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives like nourish_bulk_log_intake for bulk logging or nourish_log_intake for food logging.

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