add_weigh_in_with_timestamps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state what happens if the timestamps are omitted (schema defaults them to null), whether an entry for that date is overwritten, whether permissions are needed, or any reversibility/duplication behavior for this write operation.

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 one-line summary is front-loaded and the Args block is compact and scannable. Slight redundancy between the arg list and the schema, but no wasted prose.

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 return values need not be explained, but for an unannotated mutation tool the description should clarify the relationship to add_weigh_in and whether the two timestamps are jointly required. Those gaps leave the agent guessing about when and how to use this variant.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it documents all four parameters, gives the accepted unit values plus a spelling warning, and specifies the exact timestamp format YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ss for both timestamp fields. It falls short on 'weight: Weight value' (tautological) and does not explain that both timestamps are optional or how they interact.

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 gives a clear verb+resource ('Add a new weight measurement') plus the distinguishing feature 'with specific timestamps', which separates it from the sibling add_weigh_in at a high level. However, it never explicitly states how it differs from add_weigh_in beyond the name, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

The only reference to an alternative is inside the unit_key arg note ('Not lb; see add_weigh_in'), which is guidance about unit spelling, not about tool selection. Nothing tells the agent when to prefer this timestamps variant over add_weigh_in, or whether timestamps are required.

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