Remove a food from the user's pantry by name — e.g. 'take eggs off my pantry list'. This removes it from their on-hand STAPLES only; it does NOT delete anything from their food diary. Safe to retry — removing something that isn't in the pantry is a no-op success.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The food to remove from the pantry (any casing). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already include idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable context beyond that: it clarifies the operation is limited to on-hand STAPLES, will not affect the food diary, and that removing a nonexistent item is a no-op success. This meaningfully expands on the annotation hints.
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 a tightly packed three sentences: main action with example, scope/exclusion, and idempotency/retry behavior. Every sentence adds distinctive value; no fluff or repetition of the title/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?
The tool is simple (one required parameter, no output schema), and the description covers what it does, what it doesn't do, its scope, and its idempotent nature. With annotations providing safety hints, this is fully adequate for an agent to select and invoke correctly without further clarification.
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% — the single required parameter 'name' is described as 'The food to remove from the pantry (any casing).' The description's example ('take eggs off my pantry list') adds a slight illustrative touch but no new semantic information, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.
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+resource: 'Remove a food from the user's pantry by name.' It includes a concrete example ('take eggs off my pantry list') and explicitly distinguishes itself from food diary deletion, differentiating it from sibling tools like delete_meal. The scope is clear: only on-hand STAPLES.
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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: when removing a pantry item by name. It also gives an explicit exclusion: does NOT delete anything from the food diary. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools (e.g., delete_meal) directly, so it falls slightly short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: pantry vs diary vs food search vs preferences vs diagnostics. Even similar tools like get_day/get_range are clearly differentiated by scope, and search_foods/lookup_barcode are distinguished by input type (text vs barcode).
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase snake_case (add_pantry_item, get_day, log_meal, search_foods). The only exception is whoami, which is a standard diagnostic convention and does not disrupt the overall consistency.
With 12 tools, the server is well-scoped for its food-tracking domain. Each tool covers a necessary function (pantry CRUD, diary CRUD, food search, preferences, diagnostics) without redundancy or bloat.
The tool set provides full lifecycle coverage for the core domain: pantry items can be added, read, and removed (upsert covers update); diary entries can be created, read (single/day/range), updated, and deleted; food lookup includes text search and barcode; and preferences are accessible. No obvious gaps hinder agent workflows.
