log_supplement_taken

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

Annotations already signal mutation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it documents inference defaults (date=today, taken=true), the requirement that exactly one selector be provided, and the error behavior when supplement_name matches multiple items. This is valuable context for invocation.

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 well-organized. Purpose, usage condition, inference rules, and selector requirements are each given their own section with no redundant or filler content. Every sentence adds operational value.

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 the moderate complexity, the 100% schema coverage, the presence of an output schema, and annotations covering mutation safety, the description is complete. It covers prerequisites, defaults, selector resolution, and failure behavior, so an agent can invoke it correctly without guessing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds important semantics beyond the schema: the exact-one-required relationship between supplement_id and supplement_name, the inference rules, and the multiple-match error behavior. This compensates well for the schema's lack of required-parameter enforcement.

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 verb and resource: 'Mark a medication or supplement as taken or not taken for a specific date.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_supplements or manage_supplement, and the action 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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Use when the user says they took (or missed) a medication or supplement on a particular day.' It also notes the daily tracking mode prerequisite. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the guidance is clear enough for selection.

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