update_weight

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

The annotations already indicate not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotent (idempotentHint=true). The description adds behavioral context (auth requirement, first-time extra params), but doesn't elaborate on side effects or whether updating an existing date overwrites or appends. This is adequate given the annotation context.

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?

Two sentences, each with distinct valuable info (core action, first-time requirements, auth prerequisite). Efficient and front-loaded, no filler.

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 7 parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description does not fully cover what happens on success, validation rules, or the meaning of height_type/weight_type. It captures the main workflow but leaves gaps, especially for a tool that likely returns a status or entry ID.

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 very low (29%), so the description must compensate. It mentions goal_weight_kg and current_height_cm for first weigh-in, and date as implicit, but doesn't explain comment, height_type, or weight_type. The description adds some value but leaves many parameters unexplained, matching the baseline for low coverage.

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 records weight for a date, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_weight_month or search_foods, but could be slightly more precise by emphasizing it updates or creates a single entry.

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 notes that the first weigh-in requires goal_weight_kg and current_height_cm, and advises checking auth status first with check_auth_status. This provides clear context, though it lacks explicit alternatives for when not to use this tool.

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