update_health_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutating operation ('Atualiza ou define') but fails to specify whether it performs an upsert, requires permissions, overwrites existing values, or what the response looks like. This lack of detail is a significant gap for a 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 description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the main action and gives concrete examples. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite being a mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core concept of setting general health metrics. However, it leaves ambiguity about upsert behavior, return values, and handling of missing parameters. It is minimally adequate but not fully complete for a tool with 5 optional parameters and no structured output.

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?

The input schema already documents all 5 parameters with descriptions and ranges (e.g., mood 1-5). The description only lists examples already present in the schema, adding no extra semantic context. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 updates or sets general health metrics at once, listing examples like sleep, weight, mood, and notes. It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing 'de uma vez' (at once), implying a bulk operation versus the more specific log tools (log_water, log_calories, etc.). However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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 description implies usage for setting general health metrics for a date, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so the agent must infer context from sibling tool names.

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