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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a destructive operation. The description adds valuable context: 'ok=true only after Garmin no longer has that log_id' and 'Result calories are the deleted snapshot.' This goes beyond the annotations by explaining the deletion's effect and the result semantics.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste. The most important guidance (prefer log_id) is front-loaded, and the behavioral notes about ok=true and result calories are concise and valuable.

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 destructive tool with 10 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects: what gets deleted, how to identify the target, and what the result means. It doesn't explain the full parameter matrix, but the schema already does that. The description is complete enough for an agent to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but it does reinforce the preference for log_id over query. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 ('Remove an existing food') and adds a key scoping detail ('Prefer log_id from list_nutrition'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like log_nutrition and update_nutrition by focusing on deletion, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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 clear guidance on when to use this tool: prefer log_id from list_nutrition, and use query only when log_id is unknown. It also implies the alternative (list_nutrition) for finding the log_id. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it versus update_nutrition, but the deletion context is clear.

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