create_health_entry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. '健康エントリを新規作成' gives no information about side effects, whether entries are private by default (though the schema mentions is_private defaulting to true), retention, or data relationships. The description provides zero behavioral context beyond the action itself.

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 short sentence which is efficient, but it's under-specified rather than appropriately concise. For a tool with nested objects and multiple parameters, the brevity borders on insufficiency rather than demonstrating careful trimming of unnecessary content.

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?

This is a complex create operation with a nested data object, multiple optional fields (tags, confidence, importance, is_private, metadata), a scoped profile_id parameter, and no output schema. Yet the description provides essentially no context about what the tool does beyond the name-translation. Someone new to the API would not know what distinguishes a health entry from other entry types.

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 50%, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all beyond what the schema already provides. The schema has nested object parameters (data with type/title/enum-ish fields) that need contextual explanation, especially the type field with its implied enum values (habit/condition/goal/routine) and the relationship between profile_id and scoping, but the description does not compensate for these gaps.

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 '健康エントリを新規作成' means 'Create new health entry' - it states the verb (create) and resource (health entry) clearly. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like create_life_event, create_goal, create_episode which may have overlapping semantics, and doesn't explain what a 'health entry' constitutes in this domain.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The sibling list includes many creation tools (create_goal, create_episode, create_life_event) with potentially overlapping use cases, but the description provides no differentiation. There's no mention of prerequisites or when one might prefer a different tool, such as create_life_event for health-related life events.

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