mfp_log_exercise

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: calories are considered required by MFP, and when omitted they are computed using the same METs x body-weight x hours formula as MFP's client. The '[legacy]' marker also signals that this tool may be deprecated. This is valuable context for an agent deciding whether the tool is appropriate.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the most important behavioral detail about calories. Both sentences earn their place, with no redundant filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and the annotations indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation, the description covers the main unique ground: legacy status and calorie computation. It could be more complete by pointing to a recommended alternative or mentioning the need to first search for an exercise_id, but the schema already notes the exercise_id source.

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 describes most fields, and the description contributes one useful clarification for the calories parameter: the exact auto-computation formula and MFP's conceptual requirement. This is incremental but limited to a single parameter; no additional meaning is added for date, minutes, exercise_id, or response_format.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Log a cardio/strength exercise to the diary.' This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from meal, food, measurement, and fast logging siblings. It does not explicitly name alternatives, so it misses the top score, but the purpose is 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?

The description gives no guidance about when to choose this tool over related tools such as mfp_log_meal, mfp_bulk_log, or mfp_add_food_to_diary. The only context is the '[legacy]' flag, which hints that there may be a newer alternative but does not name it. The calorie note is about parameter behavior, not use-case selection.

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