log_weight

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions the unit 'kilograms' (helpful) but fails to disclose side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites an existing entry for the same day), required authentication context, or rate limits. The description is overly minimal.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args section is clearly structured. However, it could be trimmed further by merging the first sentence with the example; still, no significant waste.

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 low schema coverage and no annotations, the description lacks essential details like date format, valid range for kilograms, and whether updates are allowed. The output schema exists but isn't leveraged to clarify return behavior. The tool involves a write operation that could have side effects, but nothing is disclosed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the schema's lack of meaningful property descriptions. It does add the example format for 'kilograms' (e.g., 74.5) and clarifies that 'day' defaults to today. However, it does not specify the date format expected (e.g., ISO 8601, YYYY-MM-DD) or any bounds on 'kilograms'. This is insufficient for a zero-coverage schema.

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 verb 'Record' and the resource 'body weight measurement in Garmin Connect'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'get_weight_history' which is a read operation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_weight_history' for viewing past weights. There is no mention of prerequisites or restrictions (e.g., can only be logged once per day? Does it support future dates?).

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