tp_log_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only implies a write operation but doesn't state whether logging overwrites existing entries for a date, whether it's idempotent, or what authentication requirements exist. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that avoids redundancy. It earns its space by naming the resource and examples, but its brevity contributes to the lack of completeness.

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?

With 10 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is under-specified. It doesn't explain return values, duplicate-date behavior, or required conditions (e.g., coach accounts for athlete). The minimal description is insufficient for safe invocation in all contexts.

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 low (30%): only date, injury, and athlete have descriptions. The description adds a high-level list of metric types but doesn't clarify units (e.g., hrv, spo2), range for injury (though schema says 1-10), or whether metrics are additive/overwriting. The athlete parameter's coach-only behavior is only in the schema, not the description.

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 action (log) and the resource (health metrics for a date), with examples. It distinguishes from sibling tools like tp_get_metrics, which retrieves metrics. The verb 'log' is specific and unambiguous.

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 given on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as tp_get_metrics for reading or tp_update_nutrition for nutrition. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context signals about the intended workflow.

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