mfp_delete_custom_food

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description explicitly states 'Destructive and not recoverable' and discloses the failure mode if a food is actively referenced. It also specifies the return type (confirmation with HTTP status). This adds meaningful behavioral context without contradicting 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 main purpose, followed by a concise warning and a structured Args/Returns section. Every sentence adds value, and it avoids unnecessary repetition 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 destructive tool with a simple input model, the description covers the essential risks (irreversibility, potential refusal), the input (food_id), and the output format (confirmation with HTTP status). The annotations and schema fill in the remaining details, so no important context 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?

The description mentions 'by id' and lists food_id in the Args section, but adds little beyond the input schema, which already provides detailed descriptions for food_id (source) and response_format. The response_format parameter is not mentioned in the tool description, but the schema covers it adequately.

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 clearly states the action: 'Delete one of the user's custom foods by id.' It names the specific resource (custom foods) and the method (by id), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like mfp_remove_food_from_diary or mfp_list_own_foods.

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 conveys the use case (permanently deleting a custom food) and includes a caveat that foods referenced by diary entries may be refused. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, when not to use it, or suggest a workflow to check diary references first.

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