update_wellness

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, lowering the bar. The description adds 'Updates only specified fields,' which conveys partial-update semantics beyond the annotations. It does not detail auth or error behavior, but the description is still informative.

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 front-loads the purpose and usage in the first two sentences, then provides a compact args list. For 10 parameters, the list is appropriately terse and scannable. No filler; every section earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. With annotations covering idempotency/safety, the description covering update semantics, and schema covering all parameters, the tool is well-specified. Minor missing details like upsert behavior are not critical.

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% and the schema descriptions already include units, scales, defaults, and examples. The description mostly repeats this information without adding new param-level meaning. The 'Updates only specified fields' note is valuable globally but not parameter-specific, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description opens with 'Update daily wellness metrics for a given date,' a specific verb+resource+scope combination. It clearly distinguishes from read-style siblings by stating it is for logging/updating wellness metrics. No ambiguity.

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?

'Use to log or update daily sleep, weight, HRV, and subjective readiness' provides explicit usage context. 'Updates only specified fields' clarifies an important boundary. It does not name alternatives, but the sibling list/get tools make the alternative obvious.

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