log_water

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the action (registra/adiciona) but does not disclose side effects such as whether it appends, overwrites, or requires authentication. No details about return values or error behavior are given, which is a notable 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately conveys the tool's purpose and resource, making it easy to parse.

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 simple logging tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not mention return values or uniqueness behavior, which leaves some ambiguity, but overall it is sufficient for a low-complexity tool.

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% with descriptions for both ml and date, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'água (ml)' but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as units or format clarifications already present.

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 tool logs or adds water (ml) consumed on a date, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from sibling logging tools like log_calories and log_meal by the explicit 'água' (water) focus, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource: this tool is for logging water intake, while siblings handle other health logs. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions are provided, but the context of sibling tools makes the use case clear.

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