mfp_remove_food_from_diary

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds critical context: the distinction between the UUID returned by mfp_add_food_to_diary and the food_entry_id from the diary page, the default max_matches=1 for safety, and the return format. This goes well beyond the annotation.

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 well-structured with clear headings (Two modes, Args, Returns). It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, with every sentence contributing either to mode explanation, parameter guidance, or return behavior. No wasted words.

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?

Given the destructive nature and two-mode design, the description fully covers usage, parameters, exceptions (NOT a food_entry_id), and return values. The output schema exists, so the brief 'JSON describing each entry that was removed' suffices. No significant gaps remain.

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?

While the schema already has descriptions for each parameter, the tool description adds crucial semantic nuance: it clarifies that entry_id is specifically the UUID from mfp_add_food_to_diary (not the diary page ID), explains the relationship between name_contains and meal, and emphasizes max_matches as a safety cap. This enriches the schema's meaning.

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 'Remove (delete) one or more food entries from your diary.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes the two modes (by entry_id vs by name_contains), making it unambiguous among 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 provides explicit guidance on when to use each mode: 'Use this when you already know the ID' for entry_id, and describes the fuzzy matching process with optional meal restriction and max_matches safety cap. This gives clear context for selecting the appropriate approach.

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