add_food_entry

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

The annotations already communicate idempotency and non-read-only behavior. The description usefully adds that the idempotency is 'durable' and 'keyed by' a value, giving the agent a clearer model of how duplicate calls are handled. No contradiction with 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 a single, tightly written sentence with no filler. The core action and key constraint are front-loaded.

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?

Despite having an output schema and annotations, this is a write operation with seven parameters and zero schema-level descriptions. The description leaves out essential usage context, parameter relationships, and duplicate-handling outcomes, so the agent has too much to infer.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only hints at the idempotency_key semantics. It does not clarify what food_id, serving_id, number_of_units, meal, or date mean beyond their names and schema types.

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 names a specific action ('Add') and a specific resource ('food diary entry'), and clarifies the idempotent nature ('once, keyed by a durable idempotency value'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling read-only tools like get_user_food_entries and search_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?

Usage is implied: this is the tool that adds a food entry, while siblings are mostly retrieval tools. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it relates to alternatives such as updating or deleting entries.

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