preview_hr_profile_update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying exactly what is returned (approved fields, proposal, hash) and confirming no writes, giving agents confidence in safe execution.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence covers action and output; the second reinforces safety. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 parameter-less tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. It explains the nature of the output (before/after fields, canonical proposal, hash) and clarifies no side effects. Complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description appropriately does not mention parameters, as none exist. Per the rubric, 0 parameters baseline is 4.

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 'Read' and specifies the resource 'current HR settings'. It details the exact outputs: 'every approved before/after field, canonical proposal, and hash'. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'apply_hr_profile_update' by explicitly stating it performs no writes.

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 previewing HR changes before applying them, reinforced by the explicit 'Performs no Garmin writes'. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context and sibling tool names provide sufficient guidance for an AI agent.

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