update_wellbeing

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly false, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses that only provided fields are updated and omitted fields remain unchanged, and that ambiguous date matches cause an error with candidate IDs. This gives the agent accurate expectations about partial updates and failure modes.

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 short paragraphs with no filler: the operation is stated first, then the selector rule. Every sentence carries necessary information for correct invocation.

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?

The description covers all non-obvious invocation logic (selector requirement, ambiguity handling, partial update behavior). With the output schema present and annotations covering safety/idempotence, nothing essential is missing for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 the schema already documents all 7 parameters at 100% coverage, the description adds the crucial constraint that exactly one of id/date is required and explains the resolution error behavior. It also clarifies partial update semantics that apply to the optional fields, which the schema alone does not state.

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 ('Update') and resource ('existing wellbeing entry'), making the operation unambiguous. The word 'existing' implies modification rather than creation, separating it from log_wellbeing, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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 explicit invocation conditions: exactly one of id or date is required, with a fallback rule for dates that match multiple entries. It does not explicitly contrast against create/delete alternatives, but the context for when to use this update tool is clear.

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