Move Fitatu Meal Item

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

Discloses the critical side effect that Fitatu creates a new item id during a valid move — information absent from the annotations, which only carry readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint. It then instructs the agent to 'use the returned itemId for later mutations,' preventing a likely follow-up error of reusing the stale id. Including the exact return shape reinforces confirmation behavior beyond what the annotations convey.

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?

Four sentences with the verb+resource action front-loaded, followed by the constraint, side-effect warning, and follow-up guidance — each sentence earns its place. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 5-parameter mutation with a non-obvious side effect, the description covers selection criteria, destination constraints, item-id recreation, return shape, and post-call usage. The annotations and output schema cover the safety profile and return structure, so nothing essential an agent needs to invoke this correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters; baseline is 3. The description adds cross-parameter coordination by tying together the source triad (fromDate, fromMealKey, itemId) and the at-least-one-destination constraint, but this largely mirrors the schema's own description. No new per-parameter facts are introduced.

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?

States a specific verb ('Moves and confirms') with a resource ('Fitatu meal item') and exact selection criteria (source date, mealKey, itemId). The verb 'moves' clearly distinguishes it from sibling meal-item tools like update_meal_item, replace_meal_item, and remove_meal_items, which perform different operations.

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?

Sets clear preconditions: 'Provide a destination date, mealKey, or both that differs from the source,' which tells the agent exactly what inputs satisfy a valid move. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so an agent must infer the choice against update/replace/remove siblings from the verb and operation semantics alone.

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