update_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 burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'update health entry' with no mention of what happens on update (partial vs full replacement), whether is_private defaults apply, data validation behavior, or any side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 extremely short (4 characters of substantive content); while there's no waste, this is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. A single sentence with no additional context fails to leverage the space available for a tool with a nested object parameter.

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 tool with nested objects, 2 required params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides almost nothing beyond the tool name. It doesn't explain the update semantics (partial update? merge vs replace?), default behaviors (is_private defaults to true per schema but unstated), or the response format. This is inadequate for an agent to use confidently.

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%, with the two required params (id, data) — the 'data' nested object contains many fields with descriptions. The overarching 'data' parameter itself has no description beyond being an object of updatable fields. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so with 50% coverage this is borderline adequate but could compensate more for the undocumented params.

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 "健康エントリを更新" (Update health entry) states the verb (update) and resource (health entry), which is clear. However, it's minimal and doesn't differentiate from the many sibling update_* tools (update_skill, update_project, etc.) other than naming the resource, which is already obvious from the tool name itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No mention of prerequisites (such as having an existing entry ID), no mention that create_health_entry should be used first, and no exclusions or alternative tool references. The usage context must be entirely inferred.

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