update_wellness

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well by revealing the create-if-missing behavior and partial-update semantics. It also documents the subjective 1-5 scale and the JSON return format. It does not mention permissions or reversibility, but these are not critical for an update tool.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with purpose, but the 'Args' section largely repeats the input schema's field descriptions, making it longer than necessary. The early sentences and scale explanation are valuable, but the duplication prevents a higher score.

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 13-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers the key behavioral context: upsert, partial updates, metric scales, and return type. It could explicitly state that unspecified fields are left unchanged for existing records, but 'Only provide the fields you want to update' strongly implies partial merge semantics.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful scale anchors ('1 = Very low/poor, 3 = Normal/moderate, 5 = Very high/excellent') and units alongside the arg list. The description therefore adds value beyond the schema, though much of the arg list duplicates schema names and 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Update wellness data for a specific date,' and the upsert line clarifies the write scope. This distinguishes it from read-only wellness siblings like get_wellness_for_date and from other update_* 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 conveys when to use the tool by stating it updates wellness metrics for a specified date and supports partial updates ('Only provide the fields you want to update'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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