log_wellbeing

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

Beyond annotations, it discloses the overlap conflict behavior: returns a warning with conflicting entry IDs and requires the user to update or delete existing entries first. It also explains date-range inference defaults and rating estimation. This adds meaningful behavioral context not present in the structured annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then organized into support scope, conflict handling, and inference bullets. Every section adds operational value, with no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 7-parameter tool with all optional fields and an output schema, it covers when to use it, how to derive period and ratings, and what happens on conflicts. The output schema handles return-value details, so nothing essential is missing.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantive meaning: natural-language inference rules for period_start and period_end ('this week' = Monday–Sunday, 'this month' = first–last day) and example rating mappings ('exhausted'=2, 'great energy'=8). It also clarifies that any subset of rating fields may be logged, which is operationally useful.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Log subjective wellbeing ratings for a day, week, month, or custom date range.' It names the rating dimensions (energy, mood, stress, soreness), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling log_* tools such as log_sleep, log_body_metrics, and log_workout.

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 states when to use: 'Use when the user describes how they feel — energy level, mood, stress, or muscle soreness.' It also defines date-inference behavior and overlap handling, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or give when-not-to-use exclusions.

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