mfp_set_goals

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

Annotations already declare the operation is a non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds the key behavior that unspecified values remain unchanged (merge semantics), which is not captured in annotations. This is valuable context for the agent.

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 a clear purpose, behavioral note, args list, and return type. The args list somewhat duplicates the schema but remains concise and readable, with no unnecessary fluff.

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 the partial update behavior, parameter meanings, and return type. It does not mention authentication requirements, but this is likely implied for all mfp tools. It is complete enough for a straightforward setter, though it could note the no-op behavior when all params are null.

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 lists each parameter with type and meaning, but the schema already provides detailed descriptions and constraints (e.g., min/max). The description adds no new information beyond the schema and omits the value ranges, making it adequate but not additive.

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 tool updates daily nutrition goals (calories, protein, carbs, fat) with the verb 'Update' and specifies the resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like mfp_get_goals (read) and other mfp setters by focusing specifically on nutrition goals.

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 useful partial update semantics ('Only updates the values that are provided; others remain unchanged'), which guides usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like mfp_get_goals or other mfp setters; the context is implied rather than stated.

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